 over the course of today. So first of all, good morning once again, and thank you to all of us for joining us here today. It's really a great privilege to have you here with us at the first ever IEA Energy Innovation Forum that brings together a wide range of stakeholders represented by all of you from around the world, startups, as well as established industries, investors, academia, think tanks, and of course, governments. We are very, very proud that you all followed our invitation to attend and participate in today's energy innovation forum. A very warm welcome to all of you. My name is Timo Gül. I'm the Chief Energy Technology Officer of the IEA, and I will be moderating this first session or the first half of this session before I pass on later for the second half to our colleague, Akshad Rathi. During this session, we will discuss what worked and what didn't in global cooperation on technology innovation and what we need to do better to ensure that technology can play its critical role not only for enhancing energy security and meeting our shared climate ambitions, but also for contributing to economic growth and job creation. Over the past 50 years, since the IEA was created, energy policy objectives have changed quite a lot at the time when the technology collaboration programs, the IEA's technology collaboration work, was put in place. This was very much about enhancing energy and oil security. But there is a new focus over the last several decades, which is about climate change, of course, which has given the whole innovation work very new amputus. We have many success stories to build upon, not the microphone today, but certainly solar PV, wind, batteries, et cetera. But also we have very, very little time left for reaching net zero emissions by mid-century. Just to illustrate how past innovation cycles have worked, it took solar PV roughly 30 years from the belt slap in the United States to market introduction and another 30 years to achieve just 1% of global electricity generation. No matter how you think about innovation moving forward and the future more broadly, I think it is safe to say that we don't have the luxury of being as generous again on innovation cycles of the many new and emerging clean energy technologies that are not yet in the market. We need to significantly accelerate the deployment and scale up of key energy technologies. But it's also safe to say that we can do better. We have far more knowledge, we are far more connected, and we can share ideas far more quickly than we could in the past. This is what today is all about. The objective here is to identify the different perspectives on what's needed to support energy technologies, to move from the innovation phase to early adoption, about the various roles of different stakeholders in getting there and importantly, how we can improve international collaboration on energy innovation and what you think the IA can do in supporting this aim. All this with a view of being faster and being better. The role of policy makers will of course be critical here with regards, not only with regards to funding R&D and demonstration projects that can benefit society, but also in establishing policies and regulations that give innovators and funders the confidence they need to take on technology risks and move quickly towards the market. International coordination can be important here to accelerate deployment and create larger economies of scale, making the transition more affordable for more countries. I was meant to show a slide here, I think at this particular moment, but I think it is just, I would just like to say that the difficulty that we are currently facing in the current economic climate, no. See, we have a technology issue today very clearly, but anyway. This is a slide. This is a slide, yes. It's a great slide, no, I mean it shows us, so it's all very good. So it can't be so good. So this one, but this one is the one that I really wanted to show you. The pressing concern that we're facing in the current economic climate is also about the finance flowing to clean energy entrepreneurs. It fell to around 36 billion dollars in venture capital in 2023, down from over 45 billion US dollars the year before, which is very symptomatic of the tougher conditions that innovators are facing, including higher capital costs. And in addition, we all know of course that the geopolitical landscape is undoubtedly very complex. To discuss these issues, I'm now very delighted to be joined by three very distinguished guests with deep experience at the highest level of government. I have a couple of questions that I will be asking them over what was originally thought of as roughly half an hour, and I'm very much looking forward to a conversation about their country priorities for clean energy innovation, and their views on how we can accelerate progress. Alongside me today are Excellency Kadri Simpson, European Union Commissioner for Energy, the Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of Canada, and His Excellency Davis Churchill, Minister of Energy and Petroleum in Kenya. See, this is really, anyway. I would like to start with a question to you, Commissioner Simpson, if I may. Given that the European Union has been a leader in international cooperation on energy R&D over 40 years of its research framework programs, what can you tell us about the European Commission's main priorities in relation to technologies that are not yet widely demonstrated, and how do you think the IEA can help realizing the EU priorities? Good morning, and this is very true that European Commission has provided steer and financing for European research already for decades, and as early as already in 90s, we started to support breakthroughs in renewable energy, and as we all have seen, this resulted to the emergence of major new industrial sectors, both in Europe, but also globally. And currently, Europe has two main funding instruments to support research and innovation. These are Horizon Europe and Innovation Fund. Horizon Europe supports the development of the next generation of technologies required for deep carbonization, and I will mention some of the priorities under this Horizon Europe Fund. First, this is greed and storage innovation, because at the expected increase of renewables in our electricity system, it will require major innovations in power transmission and distribution, but also greed management and storage. And last November, we adopted European Greed's action plan, and this recognized very clearly the need to innovate. And let me just highlight the few key technologies we focus on. Multi-terminal high voltage direct current systems. These are required to transport based amount of renewable electricity, especially from offshore wind farms, and then also energy sector integration solutions, which demonstrate the nomination of the power, heat, gas, and industry with renewable energy production in diverse geographic and climatic and economic conditions. We also prioritize energy storage technologies, for example, high performance thermal energy storage solutions, or large-scale seasonal heat or cooling storage technologies. And we continue also to support improvement of renewable energy technologies, so including their circularity. This is important for solar PVs, but we also focus on wind and tidal and wave and hydropower. And the other pillar of our financing, the Innovation Fund, supports already more mature technologies at industrial scale. And our work focuses on three groups of technologies. First, solutions for decarbonizing the energy-intensive industries to support our industry, who is otherwise very hard to debate. Then renewable hydrogen, both production, but also it's used in various sectors. And third important sector where we support the developments is carbon capture, use, and storage. And in fact, last week, along with our targets for 2040 to cut our CO2 emissions by 90% in Europe, we also presented and adopted an industrial carbon management communication. And how we can cooperate on these priorities with international energy agency, well, IA has been our partner on many ways. IA's analysis of different policies and technology trends is actually a very important source of information for our policymaking. And this is a day-to-day working relationship between two of us. And IA also plays a very important role to support us on our international initiatives. For example, we do have Clean Energy Ministerial, which helps us to create a global hydrogen market and hydrogen initiative in this regard. It's a very promising avenue to help to decarbonize hard to debate sectors. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Simpson. Minister Wilkinson, you have a lot of hands-on experience before your time in government in the space. So how views evolved in relation to how best to share the risks and rewards inherent to energy innovation, which are Canada's domestic priorities in relation to energy, RD&D and innovation and considering the challenges ahead of us. What policies and programs are you spearheading to put Canadian clean energy technology at the forefront? Thank you. That's a very, very broad question to try to answer in a couple of minutes. I guess what I would say is I spent almost 20 years in the clean tech space before making the crazy decision to enter politics. But I think first and foremost, there's a lot of folks around the table here who are involved in some of the earlier stages of technology development. And then there are others who are more on the technology deployment side of things. We all kind of think about things within our own prism, but I think one of the things that a policymaker needs to do is to be able to step back and understand that technology is fundamentally based on ideas, but ideas on their own are far from sufficient in order to actually affect change. One needs to think about a policy framework that actually is thoughtful around fundamental research, around early stage research and development, around the development process itself, and then how you actually demonstrate technologies, which is far from simple, especially with industrial technology. And finally, how you actually begin the commercial deployment phase and move to a point where it actually accelerates on its own. There's obviously role for the private sector in that context, but there's a role for government in both setting a policy framework, but also in the context of thinking about the instruments that are required to enable companies to successfully move through that chain, including assistance with things like early stage research and development, including instruments where the market is not capable of providing all of the capital that's required, particularly for long cycle technologies that the government has a role to play in stepping in. I would say the government of Canada is interested in a lot of technology. We're certainly interested in the deployment of technologies that we have not developed ourselves. So wind and solar is a good example of that. Canada is not a leader in the development of primarily wind and solar, although clearly we have interests in things like storage. We are interested in lots of process technology that applies specifically to different sectors. I see Arsalaumetal here. We're certainly interested in electric arc furnaces and I see the H2 Green Steel folks. We're certainly interested in what Sweden is doing on hydrogen for steel. But I would say for Canada, probably some of the areas that we are particularly focused on would be carbon capture and storage for the purpose of mitigating carbon emissions from a range of different industrial processes, not simply the oil and gas space. And that is an area we spend a lot of time in terms of both technology development and technology deployment. Nuclear, so thinking about new designs for large-scale nuclear, but obviously a lot of work going on on small modular reactors in Canada and in many countries around the world. Hydrogen for a whole range of different reasons, including looking to supply some of the needs of our friends in Europe. But that is reforming processes that is paralysis technologies, that is optimization of electrolysis. And then I would say critical minerals which are fundamental to prosecuting the energy transition. And there it's not really about how do you get critical minerals out of the ground. It's about how do you process them where the concentration of processing technology right now resides in certain jurisdictions. And I think there is a desire to actually have different ways of addressing those issues. So we have focused a lot of the tools on those areas, not exclusively, but certainly on those areas. And certainly we look forward to and we look to other countries around the world as to how we can actually learn from each other to do better. Thank you very much, Minister Wilkinson. Now, Minister Ciccia, it's really wonderful to have you here and to get the perspective from Kenya here. Can you explain us how your national priorities for technology innovation are similar or different to those of the European Union and Canada and what are the areas of technology development or adaptation that will be most important for your countries moving forward? Thank you. Thank you. It's more nice to be here to gather this distinguished gathering of IEA at 50 to reflect, like you said, on what we need to do together to basically be where we ought to be with the challenge of climate change today. Kenya technological innovation may be different from European Union and Canada as both countries are endured differently and the energy needs are different. To start with, Kenya electricity access is currently at 75% and the remaining 25% is the most difficult and will need technological innovation. This will be in renewable energy, many grids to access those difficult areas that today are not yet accessed. Solar home system with innovative pay as you go business models, working for example with one of the leading cellular mobile providers, like you did say in your opening remarks, what is needed to support technologies today's collaboration with industry. We have some solution by one of the leading solution providers called SephoraCom, one of the leading mobile companies in Kenya, called Mcopa. Mcopa is a solution that takes to provide services through collaborative provisioning of credit to access solar PV for homes through a pay as you go solution called M-Pesa. Extension of the grid by use of single wire return which will allow reach to as many people as possible. And increase renewable energy in the national grid, integration of renewable energy technologies will also come to play. This include and not limited to battery energy systems with innovation, business models that private sector need private sector to play more role in provision of energy services. In the clean cooking sector, majority of Kenyan populations about 70% today as it is in most of the sub-Saharan African countries still depend on biomass or unsustainable fuels for cooking. Presenting challenges of upper respiratory diseases in the way we live, cooking in not very well ventilated homes. Our priority towards the year 2030 as we bridge the gap towards 100% renewable energy will be to improve on current electricity access from 75% to 90% access to clean more than cooking for all. We are thus quickly encouraging the participation of the private sector and non-state actors to realize innovations in technology and deliver models that will contribute to the goal of ensuring accelerated access to electricity and clean more than cooking by the year 2030. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Minister, and in the interest of time maybe I just ask one follow-up question to Minister Wilkinson if I may, given that Canada is currently chairing the IEA's Committee on Energy Research and Technology, how do you see international collaboration moving forward and what do you think the IEA can do to help advance Canada's and other countries' priorities in that space? Well, I think the IEA already does a lot. I think there's a list of what is it, 500 technologies that you folks actually cover. And I think there are probably a number of different things from an international collaboration perspective, but first and foremost, it's actually about visibility on what is happening out there with respect to technology development in areas of interest to particular countries. We certainly should not be endeavoring to reinvent the wheel in every country. We should be looking at best demonstrated practices to try to actually understand how we can do things from a policy perspective, but also from a technology perspective that allows us to simply go faster. Timur talked about the fact that we actually do need to go much faster than what we saw in terms of the deployment of technology with respect to solar and wind. There are enormous opportunities, and I think actually a lot of the technology that we need to see implemented around the world actually are essentially upgrades and modifications of existing technology, so I think there is reasons to be optimistic in terms of the pace. But we can all go faster if we actually use international forums to learn. And that is certainly the IEA has been a leader in that, but so have things like the Clean Energy Ministerial, Mission Innovation, the Net Zero Producers Forum, a range of things that actually bring like-minded countries together to actually be able to take advantage of the learnings that we collectively can bring to bear. So I think that is probably fundamentally the most important thing. There are obviously other forums where there's active investment and research that goes on on a collaborative basis, so ETER with respect to nuclear fusion is a good example of that. Those are harder because of course you end up in challenges often around intellectual property and those kinds of things, but certainly models where you can actually do some of this joint work, certainly Canada and the United States talk a lot about how we can actually do some of these things together and avoid some of the challenges around intellectual property. But at the end of the day, we do not have the luxury of time to do everything ourselves. We have to be able to leverage the work that we are all doing. Thank you. Thank you, Minister Wilkinson. And before passing over to the second part of the panel, may I ask His Excellency Tariq Elmola, who is Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources of Egypt, also to give his perspective on actions that can enhance international cooperation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ghul. And it's a pleasure to have some words regarding this important topic here, this important event. When we talk about innovation in clean energy technologies, it needs to be accelerated definitely to support meeting the Paris Agreement goals. And therefore, innovation is required, particularly in sectors that are hard to decarbonize and such as heavy industries. Will the international cooperation for clean energy innovations is essential to the risk and commercialize the new technologies. Enhancing international cooperation is important, and especially for emerging technologies and applications including hydrogen and carbon management. Sharing best practices and technical expertise and success stories between countries and can facilitate international cooperation and therefore promoting collaboration between energy industry stakeholders through joint R&D projects, technology transfer initiatives and investment partnerships. Most important part is how we can, with developing regional energy integration, to share energy resources and infrastructure to promote energy security and sustainable monetization of energy resources and hereby we can say that Egypt's leading role and vision for creating the East Mediterranean Gas Forum as a platform for collaboration between the East Mediterranean countries is a key success story for international cooperation on energy. It is important convening the role of multilateral organizations such as the IEA to enhance collaboration, coordination and collective action in addressing energy challenges, particularly for developing countries and therefore promoting technology transfer and concessional finance to developing nations to support energy transition and sustainable development efforts. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and thank you to all the ministers for these opening statements. It's been very useful to hear these strategic directions now in this particular session but also in the opening before. But today is really about the practitioners and that's where we're going to be moving towards now. I'll be handing over to Akshad Rathi, our able moderator from Bloomberg News, to moderate the next part of this session where we will hear more on the hands-on experience of practitioners in this space. Over to you, Akshad. Thank you, Timur, and thank you to all the ministers for those contributions. I wanted to pick on one thing that Minister Wilkinson talked about. He said innovation is about ideas. And as a climate journalist, when I first started telling people what my job is, they said, oh, it must be depressing. You're right about climate change. And I quickly had to change the answer and I had to say I write about climate solutions and they immediately got it because the ideas that are going to reshape the world are already out there and are reshaping conversation in big ways. People immediately understand now that there are solutions to tackling the problems that we face and that many of the solutions are visible. They are on people's rooftops, they are on farms, they are all around us. And so it's my great pleasure to have the next half hour of discussion with people who have, as again, Minister Wilkinson said, allowed those ideas to become real world impacts through both pushing those ideas but also creating the structures that are needed for those ideas to become reality. And so we'll have initial remarks and then a discussion and it's my great pleasure to welcome Agnes de Costa, who's the director of Anil in Brazil, the electricity regulator, Jonathan Pershing, who is the program director of environment at the Hewlett Foundation and has a long history of working with the US government but in other places too. And finally, Henrik Steestal, who is the founder and CTO of Steestal AS but also who's recently just won the Queen Elizabeth Prize for engineering and is in many ways the godfather of wind as many people have described him. So let's start with you, Henrik, because you've been at the forefront of figuring out how to bring ideas for real world impact for more than 50 years. So if you were to take a quick decade by decade look at how when you worked on innovation, the challenges that you faced and what solutions came through that have allowed you to be continuing to shape the energy of futures as we are going to see over the century. Yeah, thank you. Of course it has varied a lot over the decades. In the 1970s, our main challenge was to make it work. That was to make structures that were sound and could work independently, autonomously and deliver electricity safely to the grid. The 80s were characterized by the big boom in rollout driven mainly by the California market but also by the Danish and later German and other markets. If you should say anything about the 90s in particular, that was the decade when we made the first offshore wind farm. But the very first offshore wind farm in Denmark in 91 and number two in the world in 95. And so to speak, had the learning by doing that we have all benefited from in the wind industry. The biggest thing I think in the 2000s was that the whole magnitude brought along a change in that wind turbines changed from being something that was an add-on to a stable grid and was therefore required to get off if there was a grid disturbance to now becoming the backbone of many grids and therefore having to stay on the grid and restore the grid if there were disturbances. We actually managed that but it was not easy because the original technologies actually could not do that. And from then on, you can say that it has changed more into incremental changes. Of course, with the big challenge of the ever-growing demand both on the supply chain and on the competitive position of wind in the world where I'm happy to say that sometimes one could think that, well, now it's done. Now you are where you can get to. And that's very much not the case. We would have described our technology as mature 20 years ago but the turbines that are being produced now are manifestly different, better, stronger, more efficient than they were 20 years ago. So yes, we were mature but there was still plenty of space for effective innovation. And, Hendrik, you said when you were looking at these decades when you were listing out those decades you listed out a number of countries that enabled the growth of wind power as we see it. What role do you think government played in allowing innovators like you to be able to keep doing your work because, of course, there's a lot that the companies that you work for did too but how did the role of government come and play? That is a key question also when we look at what do we do with future technologies. The idea generation basically comes by itself. The entrepreneurs can't help it. They bring up the ideas. The industries can't help it. They improve on the ideas or maybe bring in new ideas. But where the governments play a key role is in the establishment of a market pull. That is what drives innovation. It does not work with a market push. The governments need to create a market pull. When there's a market pull, that basically means that there are clients out there who would like to buy these technologies. When they want to buy them, supply A says I can deliver and supply B says I can deliver something that's better, cheaper, bigger, whatever and then you get competition and the competition drives industrial innovation and that brings down cost in a very positive spiral. The way governments do that or can do that and should do that is by creating long-term frame conditions. Long-term frame conditions that create a market pull. That is the golden bullet to making things happen. In Denmark, in wind, bring in a subsidy in the early days when we were not competitive, ensuring that there were decent tariffs with the power companies and then a small but very important thing in instructing the power companies. You cannot say when somebody comes in and says I've got a wind project to that person. Oh, how exciting, very interesting. Yes, sounds good. We don't want the power. Just so that you know, go somewhere else. Originally they could actually do that and then the government came in and said no, no, no, no, no. This is how we want to make it happen and later on they facilitated the markets by what should we say acknowledging regulatory obstacles that arose. Oh, wind turbines can make noise, then we need a noise regulation. Let's make a noise regulation. Let's do it fast so it doesn't come in as an obstacle helping on the planning processes and so on. So this is the ultimate golden bullet for everything, I think in this context, that is to create a market pool that is role of the governments. And Agnes, you've been in government. You've also looked at the innovation through work that you've done for mission innovation and of course now as electricity regulator you're involved in trying to enable some of these innovations to actually come onto the grid. So from your experience in these three different areas that all connect to each other and all speak without which these ideas won't become reality, where do you think governments, especially developing country governments are succeeding in allowing innovation to get to scale and practice? Hello everybody so I'm very pleased to be here when Secretary John Kerry mentioned COP 2292. I was at high school in Rio so it's very nice to be here discussing how we move forward some decades later. So I have this background in energy design policy and I loved what Henry just mentioned because one of the things that we have to do is to be innovative in policy design and regulation and then I was thinking about one of the things that Brazil did 20 years ago was the design of energy auctions and this is how we succeeded in diversifying our energy mix before that we just had big hydropower plants, 85% of our supply and some thermal power plants and then after 20 years we have so many competitive solutions and clean energy solutions in the power sector. So this is something that we learned and then talking from my regulator perspective, yes regulation should be thought to remove bottlenecks for innovation to come from the private sector and what we see nowadays in Brazil is that when we still are working towards procuring clean energy solutions the big part of Brazil is a big interconnected system and we have still the energy auctions but there's a lot of procurement going on through the free market, this is not a problem anymore but we still have some isolated systems in the Amazon region and there we still design the energy auctions for the systems and we change how we design these auctions we are not procuring energy sources anymore we are procuring supply solutions so then what we have are several entrepreneurs coming with different kind of solutions we have for example in the Amazon region a liquefied natural gas power plants with solar we have biodiesel with solar we have so many things going on so this is how we are doing this from the regulatory perspective is thinking how we can remove barriers for new technologies because they are there already and then from the MI perspective what we are doing from our point of view from a developing country is trying to make international collaboration more supportive than prescriptive because there are solutions everywhere in the world that we have to help and I love what Minister Wixong said that we have to get there faster so there are some adaptive improvements in technology that we can do and make in localities that can achieve this goal faster one of the things we often hear about when we talk about technology innovation is this, we're talking very much about government cooperation here across different governments but also with industry and with innovators but often that relationship is actually more friction sometimes industry will complain the regulations are too strict or too many or there's too much red tape but it's interesting you framed it differently you said regulators need to be getting rid of the bottlenecks that they should be allowing innovators to come through so between these two realities which both exist in different places what is it that regulators must do to actually be enabling these technologies and innovations to come through rather than become mired in red tape what's your experience being Agnes? I think with all this fast coming innovations we are always late, this is my perception for example in Nanel we have been working lately in the regulation of the fueling of electric vehicles hybrid projects and storage as well and it's sometimes hard because the technology is not yet there so we try to propose and it's very openly discussed with public consultations to propose very comprehensive regulatory frameworks and then with time when we see the bottlenecks are the problems that the entrepreneurs face then we improve the regulation so this is more or less how we do it and Jonathan if we go back to maybe earlier in the day where we talked through the innovation pipeline going the sort of five steps from a researcher all the way to something becoming commercial one thing that I skipped in that was not all of those steps are equal between sort of step two and three or three and four there can be what is often known as the Valley of Death where there is an idea it has been shown to work but somehow because there's not enough money because there's not enough government support because there's not been enough creation of a market pull the innovator isn't able to have the kind of real world impact that that idea could have through your experience looking at innovation over the years what do you think can be done to overcome that Valley of Death and enable those ideas to actually have an impact so thanks very much and it's a pleasure to be here I'm reminded the last one of these big gatherings I was at I was one of the organizers for the 25th anniversary of the IEA so it's a very interesting thing to be back 25 years later and see the transition in technology I'm struck by a few pieces that really speak upshot to your question of where government intervenes and what kind of change we can see and how government has really successfully and in some cases unsuccessfully moved forward so if we take the idea generation I actually don't agree that that's exclusive from the outside I believe that government has a significant role I bet very few of us had an academic training that was independent of any government support from the educational institutions to which we participated so I think there's a huge role just in the support for research and it crosses wide ranges of applications it's everything from material science to electrical engineering to quite frankly policy design because very few of us operate in a vacuum I think the second place where we see the government playing a significant role is in this near term interim stage and different governments do it differently I think Minister Wilkinson spoke about some of the work that was there Minister Simpson, Commissioner Simpson spoke about some of the work that the commission is doing to try to drive that forward a bit of a demand pull the expectations around both the Paris Agreement and now more recently what we've come up with in Dubai give a fairly clear signal to the kinds of support that government is expected to produce so I'm fairly clear but we then run into a real problem because A, not all ideas should move forward so it's not a question as if everything should move and it's a question of stimulating everything it's partly a question of which one succeed and there there's a competition in the marketplace of ideas but also a competition in terms of government support and the kinds of agendas that we seek to promote so we're now in a model in which we are looking for technologies that serve multiple agendas if they're not satisfying a cost agenda we're not so interested if they don't satisfy a reliability agenda we're actually not so interested if they don't satisfy a security agenda and we can see them scaled up we're actually not so interested and if they don't satisfy a low carbon agenda we're not so interested so fairly complicated suite of things and while we may have variations that no technology does all of it the combination of the technologies is essential to manage that so I think this is a significant role for government and back to the comment that Agnes made about regulation this is where the choice of regulation matters what will you prioritize but I want to add one more point because this is a function now of social license and social license is partly a governmental play but it's also partly a non-governmental play so you'd like to cite a new wind turbine and whose backyard will that be and how will they receive it you'd like to put up a transmission system and how will that cross over property and what will people say about that that social license is also a function in part of government regulation in part of community work of development of agendas of building coalitions so in each of those cases you've got a role for the government for the private sector for civil voice and I think only with them combined can you create the change we need I think that's an excellent point to make especially one again that Secretary Kerry was raising earlier in the day where he said look at some of the protests that are happening here in Europe and the topic today is energy innovation so we should focus on that but the social license aspect is absolutely true farmers are on the streets knowing that they are going to struggle with the types of innovations that they're going to have to deal with and yet those innovations are also the ones that will help them but which of those narratives do you accept as the one that will matter to you is very important and so one other question for you Jonathan is you know in this room it's full of innovators it's full of decision makers we are here talking about innovation but do you think the importance of innovation is well understood by people because without the social license whether these innovations get the kind of support that they need over the coming decades will be decided So thank you I think there's a real tension that we have to grapple with and I want to use one example for that I just came last week from a whole week long discussion in the United States held in Colorado around the agenda of artificial intelligence and the expansion of the grid so here's a really interesting new technology it is probably going to be essential if we're going to manage efficiencies at the doubling scale that we committed to in Dubai it's going to be essential if you want to minimize total material consumption so an essential technology and yet we are in the middle of a conversation in which AI is also being used to obscure data it is being used for miss and disinformation and the scale is extraordinary and we're beginning to lose the confidence of the people who have to accept it so if I think here about a technology and this juxtaposition of public acceptance linked up to potential the potential is extraordinary we probably can't solve the questions of new materials and the generation without it we need it it has to be accelerated and governments are trying to do that but if we undermine the very use of that same technology without social license it won't be workable people will reject it and there I think is the kind of tension with all technology has faced technologies have these two forms wonderful access wonderful cost reduction and potential lack of acceptability now we're coming to the close of the session I wanted to bring this back to the main topic of this discussion which is global cooperation and put you all on the spot in your long history in this space and perhaps give me one or two examples that come to mind where government cooperation played a key role in enabling technology innovation to happen and Henry do you want to start first? I think that the European offshore wind development has been a very good example of how governments have worked together we've had best practice sharing not only on how you manage the grid with a large amount of variable electricity coming in but also on the regulatory processes how do you actually do planning how do you deal with the environmental aspects that are unavoidable when you bring in big structures into the sea and so on and there I think it's completely unimaginable that we would have the level of implementation we have now and a plan for maybe 50% of European electricity from offshore wind by 2050 if we had not had and continue to have and expand that intergovernmental and regional collaboration Agnes? One smaller example that I would like to give is one initiative that was born to mission innovation which was implemented with the help of the IEA and ECLAC and the government of the UK is a project that we call the energy big push which was the collection of data on innovation on the energy sector in Brazil since 2013 and this was very important because after that we knew for example that we were missing resources in the development phase and then with that the National Council for Energy Policy which is the most strategic council in Brazil for policy design the energy sector decided on the prioritization of resources R&D resources that we have in the power sector that are legally binding for utilities and in the oil sector that are legally binding for those who have concession rights so we prioritized in seven themes related to energy transition and after that all this database also helped us to design our national hydrogen program so this is something that was born through international collaboration which was very useful already and what makes also and this is something that gives us language in the international arena to talk about the progress that we are making and with that to come up with new ambitions so this is very important and Jonathan one of the things that the US is known for around the world is technology development but again that technology needs to reach all corners of the world so are there examples that may show how technology development with the US pushing for it can also then end up and be beneficial for developing countries that need it Thank you I think there are a few things the US has done well and some things that needs to do better on the pretty well side it's got a pretty long history of being one of the leaders in technology funding as a governmental matter puts money out into the private sector we've just done this at an enormous scale with nearly a trillion dollars in three major bills that Secretary Kerry spoke about this morning I think it does well in terms of inviting people into our academic institutions I think it does well in terms of opening up markets and being part of a large scale market discussion those are good things that I think the US is strong with and we do it with partners and allies I think we don't do that well currently in following up on some of those things the numbers of technologies that have emerged from US labs is probably uncountable and yet at the same time the number of those technologies that are really managed by American companies is more modest and the number of technology that have been taken over by others who then find lower costs and exclude American development is equally problematic and those kinds of political issues rise I think the US also has not done well in terms of the further development most particularly in developing countries of the application of those technologies I think that's a cooperative venture that the IAEA is well situated to take on and the think about the collaborative programs that might be done here is in which I think the US could help push but will only succeed if the partners around the table participate Please thank my panelists for those contributions they were fantastic Now we are going to be meeting again here at 11 o'clock for the next session It's worth remembering that what happens today matters because the thoughts you will put out will be as part of the ministerial happening tomorrow and at the 11 o'clock session which is going to be for 19 minutes you will get to contribute and so please come back and let's keep the discussion going Thanks