 I would like to ask Ms. Hartley that is there any NGOs promoting this kind of renewable energy in South Africa? Any NGOs promoting and have there been instrumental in this kind of change also, like Green ID in Vietnam? Yes. May I collect some more questions before we come to answer? Hello. My name is Sivgenia Balancinia from Loppenrand in University of Technology. First of all, I would like to say thank you for really interesting presentations. And yeah, it's really interesting to see how things are happening in such countries like South Africa or Vietnam. And I see that there is a struggle as like in Europe and like everywhere else that we have conventional type of power production and of course you have to like not have to, but I mean of course it's a wise thing to go through transition towards renewables. And this question to all panelists, I think what do you think would be the most efficient way to do this transition in less painful, not costly, let's say less painful for the consumer way? And also a second question is about developing countries and going to like considering population growth and considering the fact that more than one billion people right now live without electricity at all, do you think it's wise to actually construct the huge large renewable power plants? Or would it be better to go for a decentralized, smaller scale type of using local resources power production? And also the third question, this is very small wall for Douglas on this modeling. I see that this was made for 2026, right? And it's it shows what's the production from different types of energy sources. And I see a lot of coal like in PGM market and it's just like I'm so surprised because I would assume it would be gas because gas is less pollutant and I see coal and what's the answer to that? Yes, thank you. Thank you. Maybe the search question. Please. My question is is that my question is the the role of hydro. Sometimes hydro is included as renewable. Sometimes it's not. And then the question is with all the the other externalities with with hydro of reservoirs and environmental impacts. How do you see them going on? And then the other issue is when we look at them and some of the work which we'll hear about tomorrow. This is a shameless plug for the session tomorrow on climate change. We can see in the Zambezi Basin dropping by 2070, like 40 to 50 percent of the generation. How do we look at that in terms of your hydro with the climate change impact? So there is a feedback. How do we bring them into our tools? Thank you very much. May I ask maybe Douglas, do you want to take the floor question at first? Yes, so I'll go ahead and I'll do the reverse order of questions, I guess. So I'll start with the hydro and then answer the question on the coal. And then I'll make a few comments on transition pathways, but then we can flush that out as a panelist. So hydro, large hydro is typically recognized as a clean renewable source and but also separated from the variable generating sources. So that's also the same for biomass, if it's in biomass power, which is also separating. So these tend to be by ability to manage flexibly or to be dispatched. So it's really more of the characteristic of the type of power. Your point on the example from the Zambezi Basin, which is also the same phenomenon which is happening in Brazil on large hydro and the impact of climate change on precipitation on hydro generating capability, I think is a general point, which is really important, which is that not only in the energy system modeling and analysis, et cetera, for economics of the energy system, but broadly for economic modeling, I mean, across the economy. I think that all modeling has to begin to be much more rigorous about incorporating climate futures in that tooling kit, because we know from IPCC work that, you know, the impacts are already built into the system and actually are already being felt. Adaptation will accommodate some of that, but not all of it. And that there will be very heterogeneous changes depending upon the location, the economic structure of the economy, et cetera. So beyond energy, which it does need to be accounted for, it needs to be accounted for in the economic modeling as well. On the coal versus gas, just a PJM, it's a very small point on the PJM piece. Yes, it's not very far out. And so that did not incorporate any significant change in the thermal power pleat, except for those changes which were announced already. This is now two years ago. So there wasn't anything more than that. And it was a very moderate scenario for PJM. It was about a 30% total renewable generation. Those scenarios are set by large steering committees of stakeholders. So that's why there's still coal and gas in there as well. But there's not a large capital stock shift projected in the next eight years of coal for gas. So I'll stop there. I've got some other comments that I can make on the transition piece, but maybe after my colleague's comment. Thank you. May I ask Mr. Hung Wu? OK, thank you so much for all your questions. I just would like to, again, go firstly with the hydropower development and just focusing on the Vietnam case. And then I will answer to your questions relating to the best way to transition from the renewable energy to the renewable energy path and also about the way to decentralize the kind of the transition to the local resource and so on. First about the hydropower. Actually Vietnam very heavily depends on the hydropower development in the past years. And the experience shows that a lot of the environmental impact calls from this development. And nowadays a lot of the issue and also the circumstances which make the policymaker to think about whether they continue to develop new hydropower development projects and also about reconsidering the transition with another kind of the power. Firstly, it's because there are several research showing that continuing to develop the hydropower could create a serious environmental issue relating to the deforestation in the area where the hydropower dams was built. And it makes a serious impact to the local community. Second thing is based on the research by the Energy Institute in Vietnam, it shows that the potential for hydropower development in Vietnam now already about to observe. I mean, we already consume almost all the potential of the hydropower development. So that's one of the reasons for Vietnam. Now should think about to the new way to increase our electricity capacity, energy development capacity. So that's why in the slide I show with you that the share of the hydropower in the energy sector structure has been declined by 2030s. Meanwhile, the non-renewable energy, like I said before, the coal and fire adjusted 42%. And renewable energy like the wind, solar, and so on increase dramatically. So that's with the hydropower. The second question relates to the way less painful. Actually, we cannot talk about any way, the way to feed to all countries, I think. But in the case of Vietnam, we already see that to move from the current situation to the renewable energy would give more opportunities, particularly with the poor people in the Botanist area and also the community. Because in Vietnam, the company, they cannot directly provide electricity to the household or to the company without connecting to the national grid system. So it means that every renewable energy, when they kind of invest, they have to sell their electricity production to the EVN, the state-owned company, which is in charge in buying the electricity and distribute and then retail to the customers. So I can see that when the tendency of the price decrease of the renewable energy will give the opportunity for Vietnam to move from the cost. Actually, as Dr. Zoyn said, if we include on the environmental cost and other social costs of the hydropower, of the coal-fine plant development into the cost, it will be much, much higher than it was now. And then renewable energy development become more competitive. And that relates to another question about how the developing country can move to this path, whether we can decentralize and use the local resources for the renewable energy development. I think that there are two things. The third one is kind of technological capacity improvement of the country, like Vietnam, so that we can develop our kind of the... We can adopt the technological advance and can be able to produce the domestic products relating to the renewable energy, like solar power, just like the solar power in the company. They can use that and then sell it with a lower price. And also, even in Vietnam now, there are some private companies, they produce the kind of the heating equipment but use the solar energy in the building. So this is a kind of decentralize and also the internalize the technology that could provide the opportunity for the poor people for the more community can access and can use with the new renewable energy. So that's my thought about this. Thank you. Thank you. Fair guy, hopefully. Yes, I'll start at the start. So in terms of NGOs promoting green energy in South Africa, I guess there are a number of NGOs, including WWF, Kedinkap, and there are so many others. And I think they've not only been promoting green energy, but they've been promoting trying to deduce emissions. And reduction in emissions is part of government's plan. So we've got the Department of Environmental Affairs that have very specific... Or trying to put in very specific targets in terms of how to go about reducing mitigation... Reducing emissions. Putting in place various mitigation plans. We've got the carbon tax, for example, that has been implemented or rather legislated by the national treasury. But I think that the issue that you find within South Africa is that there's still a lot of uncoordination, perhaps is the key word between these various departments. So you'll have the Department of Environmental Affairs, which is trying to put in place policies to reduce emissions. But then you have the Department of Energy that's still very much focusing on coal. So these are contradicting one another. And so while this is the case, I do think that it's getting better. And there does seem to be more of a general acceptance of the potential that renewable energy holds for South Africa. So not just in terms of lowering the electricity price, but also in the sense of what it can mean for manufacturing and that it can provide this new sort of set of industries that can help in terms of employment as well as growth. On the centralized versus decentralized RE plans. So that's highly dependent on the country and sort of the geographical locations of peoples and businesses and what infrastructure is in place. So in the case of South Africa, we've got a very good network or transmission network in place. So there isn't actually the need that much for decentralized and over the years we have been trying to include, so increase or there has been an increase in energy access for people in the country. But that being said there is a trend in terms of decentralization both by commerce as well as the residents. Well, it's more your wealthy residents. So what you've actually seen is that a lot of businesses and residential households have included rooftop PV in their buildings and it's a cost. It's a cost, it's based on a cost decision where the prices of solar PV panels for example have come down to the extent where people are saying, well, if I make this investment now, I'll recoup my money in 10 to 15 years whereas I'm less certain about what's gonna be happening at ESCOM and with the national electricity price. So that is something that is taking place. And while it's a cost decision, I think it's also a little bit about consumer consciousness as well because you find that in many sort of, there is a beginning a trend that's starting in terms of lowering the footprint and trying to be more efficient. In terms of the most efficient way or the most efficient manner to do a transition, I don't know if I have an answer for that. I mean, the one thing to do is that in the case of electricity and energy planning, we should try to do least cost options as fast as possible because that will ensure that the pricing cases we see in the economy are low. And I think also there should be a change in mentality where we're not trying to protect industries that are not viable or that are not sustainable. So that is something, factors that need to be considered, but then at the same time, we also need to think about these people that are gonna be affected. In the case of South Africa, in the power sector and sort of shifting towards green energy, this is actually the perfect time for us to do that because we've got a lot of our coal power stations are quite old and they sort of coming towards the end of lifespan. By 2040, we'll have basically only two coal power stations that will still be operating within their lifespan. We've also got nuclear power stations also reaching the end of life. So we do need to make decisions about what we are gonna be investing in. And given that we do need to spend the money in the electricity sector, we can do it in a way that's one cheaper and then also two better for the country in terms of emissions, thanks. Thank you. Can I offer? I'll offer a couple of comments on the pathways question. So there's a paper that myself and colleagues wrote a couple of years ago, it's Zinniman and all on power systems of the future that would be useful here to reflect on. And so there are a couple of principles, I think, to take into account. One is what's the starting point? It's a very different conversation about pathway and transition for an OECD country versus an emerging economy. And so that's the first point. And then for some of those that have developed energy system and particularly a power system, there are a couple of options to be thinking about much as if there's a, I'll call it a development paradigm from an economics perspective, there is also a set of development paradigms for the transition for power systems in particular. One is around generally called clean restructuring which is essentially going from a vertically integrated wholly owned organization, could be peristately owned, it could be private and breaking it apart into an independent operator and independent regulator and promoting frankly liberalization and competition in generation and also in retail services. So very much of an economic paradigm of moving forward in how that works. And then in also promoting then energy services much like is happening through much of, some of Europe and much of the United States and a few other countries where again, broader and deeper markets for more competition and more healthy economics going forward. That's one approach. The other approach is more of, I'll call it a regulatory approach because power systems tend to be natural monopolies and they tend to be oriented toward I'll call it traditional regulation. And in that case, the predominant paradigm toward transition toward clean energies is oriented toward performance based regulation. This is slightly different than what's happened in the last 15 years which has been an approach that I would call has two main components of it. One is a quantitative goal. So this is a renewable portfolio standard or renewable generation target. That is separated from financial mechanisms and fiscal mechanisms that could be tax credits, could be feed-in tariffs, could be all these other elements which are more on the finance side that's there there to support the quantitative goals. And they might be in parallel with carbon trading, renewable energy credit trading, all sorts of other again, policy instruments across the economy or across some sector of the economy. So those are two main elements depending on where you start. The other thing which I think is really important it's actually it's a very subtle element of understanding the question in terms of what's the appropriate transition pathway or development pathway for energy today that's very different than it was 15 or 20 years ago. So 15 or 20 years ago, there was an economic development paradigm that said you had to go from agriculture to manufacturing to services. You had to invest in power roads and infrastructure in order to get there. That's now being kind of questioned. I would say a little bit in terms of are there other opportunities to be more heterogeneous in terms of the economic development pathway. I think there's a very parallel track for energy and power which is one does not have to follow a paradigm which was essentially developed in the early 1900s which was centralized generation, transmission, distribution, and a holistic monopoly. And there could be in fact very healthy and clean economic development and power and energy development which is heterogeneous. It could be promoted to have competition within the industry. It could be based upon services. It could be based upon the ability of even a national utility company having the authority to actually sell and service distributed generation technologies or be in competition for that. And so again, it's a very different, I mean if one actually steps back academically and looks at it, there's an academic paradigm that can be applied that says, okay, we can move from I call it a centralized approach to a heterogeneous or necessarily, not necessarily a decentralized approach but a heterogeneous approach to it. And so those are the elements that we've articulated in terms of I call it ease of transition pathways. But I think that to the latter point, I think it's a really important conversation not only in the small room, but I think within the larger audience here that is to talk about how to clean energy and transition pathways support new paradigms for economic growth. I think even just the starting story of distributed generation offering the ability for gender, for education, for small medium, for small enterprise, for clean water, for clean cooking, those are the elements at the bottom end of that economic paradigm which are really critical in order to get to the critical mass that then go into much greater economic development in terms of services and small and medium enterprises. So thank you. I want to add, there was a question on green ID. I want to add one point for the class story. The green ID has assist, for example, a pig farm with 500, 5000 pigs. It was in the past quite difficult how to treat with a mass of the pigs, but now they use biotechnology, produce methane gas, and the pig farm is self-sufficient in energy. We use a lot of cost, and it's one of the points. Yes. And the green ID is supporting very much to instill renewable energy in ethnic minority group, in remote area, in mountainous region, like in the border of province in the north, but very much in central highland of Vietnam. And by that way, it's not only a problem of renewable energy. It's a problem of creating energy supply for decentralized unit for farmer, for isolated family for remote area. And it's really bring some kind of miracle for this family. I want to end here. Maybe we have still five minutes or four minutes. Maybe one more question, please. So I was just wondering that these are more the scenario building, the vision that is possible, right? So this is more research. And then if I look at the government action, so the national action, then how do you see to bridge the gap? Because the national concerns are more whether to destabilize the current system and is it going to be more experimental or is it going to really deliver the goals in terms of electricity generation and the mix change, right? So there is a kind of practical doubt whether this will be possible or this is going to be experimental, whether this is going to destabilize the situation. So how do you address this issue? Hi, I have a question about the role of nuclear power. So we've seen a lot of data about the growing potential of renewable energy, but there are some arguments that say that it's not happening fast enough and we need nuclear power in order to get away from fossil fuels. And I was wondering what you think about that debate. Okay, I'll start very quickly. So to the latter point, what I tried to articulate in my slides is that renewables grow at about 100, 120 gigawatts per year. That's more in each year than all nuclear that will be built in the next 20 years, which is in the pipeline about 60 gigawatts if it's all realized only in 20 years. So this is a very ill-informed myth that nuclear is much bigger and much faster and much larger than renewables. Renewables outpace it 150-fold every year. But it's not to say that nuclear cannot be part of the solution. It will depend upon the economics and the politics, frankly, in every country because not all countries are so well endowed. Let me just do very briefly on your point on this transitional element. You're asking a very complex political economy question, which is partly addressed through, I call it a suite of information. And at least from our perspectives, that suite of information involves a bit of others have done this. So how can I learn from them? That was the example of all these other countries. A bit of show me that it actually will work here because I always am very articulate that no smart policy maker will necessarily put an ambitious goal out if their ministry of power or utility tell them that that's unrealizable. And so you have to work the technical aspects of that in order to give the confidence side. And then the other element is really the finance and economics part of it, which goes back to these transition pathways. And that has an inside stakeholder game but also a very large external stakeholder game, the NGO community, the consumers, the large industries and others. And it's not a simple dynamic to play with, but there are enough examples now of this actually working throughout the world that one can at least bring some stories to tell with recognizing that the answer will always be, well, that's not here. And so I have to learn it myself. And so we have to go through it, but at least there's some lessons. Sorry. Thank you very much. Our time is over. May I ask you to thank all the three speakers with a big hand. And thank you very much for your active participation and attention. Thank you.