 So now we have two more technical or technological sessions. If you remember, we started on the framework, then the importance of the roadmap, and then the details in four sessions on technological perspectives, challenges, and objectives. Now the two sessions for this afternoon will begin with the hard to abate industrial processes. We are talking about directly 15%, but indirectly much more than that of the total emissions. Only three words, steel, concrete, and fertilizers, three completely different areas of activity that are very intensive in carbon and requires serious revisions. Today we will be unable to address everything, but good examples will illustrate how to move in this session. So this third panel of today will be moderated by Maurizio Mazzi, who is the head of chemical engineering department in Politecnico de Milano, and I will let Maurizio to present his panelists. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, the rest of the panel, we have Alberto Abadanes from this university that is an expert in energy technologies, Fabio Cirillo, that is eco-efficiency consultant at Botatarium Cementus, Brazilian cement company. Then we have Martin Pei, that is executive by presidency for technology office for SAAB, the Swiss Steel. And by the end, Giulio Friedman, that is senior research scholar at Columbia University, that is involved in the global clean energy policy. So starting from the beginning, I'm going to give a brief overview of what was the work we had done in April in Milano, discussing about almost a very heavy challenge in operation, so to decarbonize the heavy industry. And what, it's not changing. Okay, this one, okay. So we are focusing on heavy industries, where we have emission of greenhouse gas from directly from the thermal emission, but we also emission that are coming from the chemistry of the processes that are involved. And also this kind of industry has the general emission that are related to the indirect emissions of the logistics of the raw material and to the final products. Two kind of industry, one that is typically the industry of the automobile, the food and beverage industry and many chemicals is using energy for the logistics and for the processing, but there is not directly emission of greenhouse gases from the chemistry. While other industry like the one that we are going to address here have also emission that are coming from the chemistry of the process involved. And that is really a not trivial challenge to try to decarbonize those sector because it means to have a very big change in the process. Which are the real critical from this point of view, processors. Are the processors when we are producing cement, all the process that we had the reduction of ores for the iron and steel and most of the petrochemicals. And we have so in both cases direct thermal and chemical emission of greenhouse gases. And we already learned that most of the work in the future will be done in the electrification of the energy source of many many sector in those kind of industry is no possible simply to obtain the decarbonization by changing the fuel. So we must do something in addition. And which are the goal. We are emitting practically the 21% of the overall greenhouse gases today. And we are increasing practically 2050 our necessity of these kind of goods because population is increasing and all people need to have goods. So we cannot say the people that are coming to the world today they cannot access the things that we have the possibility to have in our generation. And so which is the problem. If you are looking to the projection of the International Energy Agency in 2050 we can see that the number is significantly different to the number that we need to maintain the temperature increase of 1.5 degrees centigrade. So we need to do something. Fewer switching is not enough. And also the business as usual consideration are not even to be considered. So what we can do which are the limitation why we cannot do in a simply way. First of all it's natural all the electricity that we are using this kind of industry should come from low or zero emission electricity. So that is the probably the step that is the easier to be done. The second problem is related to the natural overcome of the technologies during the years. We are used to change a mobile phone every two years. We can change a car every five years. We cannot change a big steel implant or petrochemical plant with such a speed. Those kind of plants they last at least 50 years. So we need to do something in revamping what is existing and in introducing the new technologies in the new one. Also there is one other problem related to the complexity. Most of those kind of industry are really interconnected. So interconnected and it's very difficult to change a single process without affecting all the others. So it requires a real systemic change. So we are facing a challenge like what was done by the chemical industry during the first year after the Second World War. So the changing from the chemistry that was coming from coal to the chemistry that was coming from oil. So we need to have probably the paradigm on new new chemistry that is coming from natural resources or from waste. And we're going to use the electron as part of the reactions. So our technology in which we are looking for are the electrification, the use of biomass, the use of hydropower and use of carbon capture technologies. All the barriers here are not that we are not knowing how to do things. We have barriers that today are fully of economical nature. So we had to do action to reduce. One, especially for the chemical sector because in metals it's much more easy to do. We had really to address the point of the key technologies about the recycle. And simply to consider the skip is one, the recycle for example today or plastics that is really a key action. All what will be done for the cement and steel will be addressed by the colleague that are more expert than myself. And I'm skipping this table that is the real results. I want to really consider which are the limitation that we have in this heavy industry sector. We are looking only on the carbon footprint, but many issues related to the carbon eyes include also land and water consumption. So if you are moving for example to the use of fossil fuels to electricity that is coming from renovable, let's consider for example photovoltaics, we are consuming land. So we must to have the social acceptability of the people that want to have renewable energy generation close by their homes. That is in a country that for example Italy that is really crowded and over populated is very difficult to let the people accept that you are installing such kind of facility near their home. And so integration in this field is critical and so what we have to do is really have something that is able to solve the problem in a systemic way like the one that we are trying to discuss here. Because we cannot try to find a solution for only one sector and live in alter the others. And so we need really courage and hope to try to do this kind of change in such a low limited amount of time because 30 years in the heavy industry is really nothing of time. So it's very short amount of time. I want to consider one point of the chemistry because the other aspect will be done by the colleague. And in particular which is the action to reduce the emission from the chemistry. So the wall today is what is called green chemistry and the problem we must really be able to consider which is the difference between green chemistry and the green washing that is usually done to try to do something but without doing anything. And so we are now doing a chemistry that is called what is called green in the brown. So reduction of the carbon impact of the traditionally oil based technology. But we want to arrive to what is called green green. So use the bio stocks or using raw material that are coming from the circular economy. We are producing more waste than what we are producing as new material. And also we have to consider that business and consciousness drive the innovation. If you consider that a chemical industry is using a lot of energy, saving energy is business. So that is driving a lot of innovation also today and concluding given a number, this is a number of hope just released that the Italian chemical sector is already ahead. For example, for the European Emission Limits 2020 and also to those of 2030. So when you try to do an action and you see that you are gaining money, the action is fast. So I'm concluding here. And so I'm giving the stage to Alberto Abadames that is giving the speech by the front door. Thank you. So it's a pleasure to be the first of the five for one man here, sorry. Well, as I'm here in my house, so I will give the talk to that. So I went to talk about this technology that unfortunately has not been mentioned anywhere except in a small slide given this morning that is called the direct carbonization of hydrocarbons that it was in fact very enthusiastically described by a journal, by a journalist in fact in the cover of the new scientists, this scientific journal as the reaction that will change the world. So maybe it's very optimistic but everything changed the world. Even a little small butterfly changed the world. So one of the things that we have to take into account is that the hydrocarbon is a basic resource of our society. So it's a critical issue for how to use these resources are a critical issue for the development of our society in the energy sector that is mainly what is focused here but also in many other sectors, an industrial sector that now is very hard to abate and is really a key sector for this. They use a lot of hydrocarbon. Natural gas of course, as you mentioned here that will contribute in the future constituting not only a fist of for energy, for energy sector as the transition to the green economy but also a fist of for chemical industry and that has a lot of resources coming from this source of hydrocarbons. So innovative solutions should be put into practice for a carbon neutral exploitation of these hydrocarbons. That of course when I talk about hydrocarbons I'm talking about natural gas, I'm talking about forcing fuels but of course bio gas and bio fuels. They are also hydrocarbons. Depending of where they come from, they can be considered green or brown. So and also I believe that the red hydrocarbon decarbonization may be part of the solution to control greenhouse gases emissions in the short medium term. At least to control this because as you know we need everything now. So what is that decarbonization? Decarbonization or methamperolysis is a reaction, simple reaction like this one, you have the hydrocarbon and this is the case of the simple one that is methane and this molecule is split into the basic components that are carbon solid and hydrogen gas. This assures of methane or resource will come from natural gas, can come from bio gas and can come from synthetic natural gas or synthetic hydrocarbon. Of course this reaction is endothermic. So we need energy to fulfill this reaction and this energy is thermal energy that could come from hydrogen, direct from hydrogen that is produced at the end, so around 15% of the hydrogen that we produce is needed for the reaction, either solar energy, mixtures of hydrogen and natural gas or even of course natural gas. Any kind of thermal energy. And the products are hydrogen and carbon. Hydrogen that can be used as you already know for fuel synthesis, for clean fuel synthesis. In this case because there is no CO2 production and there is no oxygen so there's no CO2. For energy delivery as energy vector or of course of industrial commodity for ammonia production have been here a lot of times discussed about ammonia as fuel in ships. So ammonia productions also for agriculture and so on and the carbon of course is what we want that could be. It could be just a mean of storage carbon or a mean of material or something for material production as graphene, graphite materials or this kind. So in this case I'm a little bit unpolitical to say that I'm not talking about the carbon-free technology but a carbon-full technology because it's carbon at the end what we have and no CO2. And carbon is a critical material for the circular economy. So we are not also limited to the energy sector. We are also going ahead and going into the circular economy in which low carbon technologies to use these forcing fuels could be or these hydrocarbons could be used for hydrogen that is used in many chemical processes that I already mentioned and also the production of graphite and metallurgy carbon that is a material, a very noble material that in fact is the base of the nature. All of you are carbon units. In San's film the robots or the artificial intelligence consider humans as carbon units. Carbon, it could be a material of the future in which it's supposed to be a very fast growing of the demand for new technologies as even for batteries or for carbon-based materials and so on, graphite and so on. And this technology could be very well integrated in something that is critical for the energy transition that is the power to us concept, power to us scheme in which, I hope most of you know as I mentioned in which the storage is done basically in synthetic natural gas using the existing natural gas infrastructure. So we have energy coming from wind, photovoltaics any kind of renewables that of course is bioelectrolysis converted into hydrogen and this hydrogen is used to produce synthetic natural gas using the CO2 that is previously capture because of course in this, in this metanization this internal gas when we use this natural gas is become against CO2. So this is the basic power to us concept in which we can iterate this kind of technology as is a technology that transferred directly hydrogen methane and methane into hydrogen. So we can use this downstream. So just in the position of the user in which we can produce synthetic natural gas we can use synthetic natural gas and produce hydrogen for the industry or for the heat energy production and we obtain solid carbon or we can use this downstream to support the electrolysis production of hydrogen by the use of a source of methane to provide the methane, the hydrogen sorry when there is no availability of hydrogen production. So this is basically the upstream concept. So as a conclusion of my talk and I see that I am perfectly on time so transition for a low carbon, low CO2 I don't want to say low carbon because it's low CO2 because we can say low carbon plus oxygen economy. Society must be, this transition must be done as fast as possible as possible. I go in social, economical and mental problems as you have already mentioned here the problems in several countries because of the taxes, of the price of energy or whatever. Innovational and technological development may integrate hydrocarbons into this economy to control this greenhouse gas emission. And hydrocarbon decarbonization is a technology that is now under development. I don't say that this is a solution but it's already now commercial of course, it's not. But it could be in the short medium term can help to reduce radical CO2 emissions. And also natural gas decarbonization is easily introduced in the circular economy to produce something that doesn't produce waste. You have hydrogen that is used for something you have carbon that is used for something. That is even a new technology that will be coming in the future in which for instance you can have a lot of carbon based materials to build the electric cars instead of aluminum, instead of steel. You have carbon based materials that are used for storage, even electricity storage. And you have hydrogen that will be used for the industry like ammonia production or any other industry using hydrogen apart of the petrochemical industry that of course needs, requires hydrogen to produce more energetic fields. And this is the conclusion of my talk. Just as a reminder, this technology was at work with the German gas industry in R&D December 2018. We got the second prize in the business area competition with the European Institute of Technology, raw materials, so I don't talk about energy. This is raw materials for the carbon, you know. And we've also got, this is our starting point, the second prize of the Novathech UPM challenge, competing with other technologies as for instance health technologies and so on. And that's all. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you, Alberto, for the perfect time. So I'm giving the stage to Fabio Cirillo from Devotaramium Cementus. Hello, good afternoon. I am Fabio Cirillo from Votorantin Cementus. It's a pleasure, thanks for the invitation to be here and to share a little bit of the initiatives that Votorantin Cementus is doing to decarbonize the industry and also talk a little bit about the challenges that we have ahead as a cement producer, okay? So I think it's clear from all the discussions that we have this morning that we are in front of one of the main challenges that humanity has had in the ever. So we need the action, we need also reflect about the daily activities of each one of us. I think we are in front of a huge challenge in fact. And just to bring a little bit about Votorantin Cementus, we are a building material company. So we produce cement, concrete, mortars, aggregates and we are in 11 operations in 11 countries. Brazil is our main market. And our commitment to sustainability is really strong. So as a company, we were part of the foundation of GCCA. That's the Global Concrete and Cement Association. It's a CEO level organization that brings together all the cement sector. Nowadays we have 40% of representation of the cement produced in the world together in the GCCA. So looking for sustainability in cement production and concrete, bring innovation and transfer best practices between the members. Also we are part of GRI, CDP, we have different actions in sustainability. And as we also have discussed this morning, it's clear for everybody that if we keep the business as usual, the average temperature in the world will increase more than six degrees. If we take all the NDCs of the countries, we still reach three degrees in increase. So we really need the action and we really need the new technologies to deliver this challenge, to have a neutral CO2 world in 2050. So bringing for the cement this challenge, it's well known that cement has an important participation in terms of CO2 emissions around the world. And also something, we have the population growing and also urbanization. 200 people are added to the cities every day. So it means that we need to build New York City by month. So that's huge, the challenge that we have to face this scale, that the market needs to build new schools, hospitals, houses, infrastructure. And we understand that cement and concrete are important materials to deliver and to meet these gaps. Especially if we think about the extreme events in this new scenario of climate change, concrete is a resilient material, durable, and then that can help a lot, bring efficiency in terms of the, if you take the life cycle concept of the production that could help delivering the technologies and what we needed to face this challenge. Just to understand a little bit about the emissions from cement, so we can also understand what are the possibilities to decrease emission. 50% of the CO2 from cement comes from calcination. So when we put the limestone inside our kiosks and heat it up, part of the molecule of the limestone releases CO2. So 50% comes from the process. And 40% from the fuel that we need to feed the skin and heat our raw material. So if you think about to deliver, how we can go through this challenge, the cement sector coming together and we have a global roadmap. So this document was build it together with International Energy Agency and it sets the target for 2050 and which are the leverage that the sector needed to implement to get to this point. So we had the global cement roadmap, the last one launched in 2018 and a specific Brazilian version of the roadmap launched in May this year. So what the roadmaps bring to us as target is we need to decrease the CO2 emissions until 2050 by 24% considering also that the cement production is expected to grow from 12 to 23%. So it's a huge challenge. It means that we need to live from 540 kilograms of CO2 by ton of cement by 370 kilograms, CO2 by ton of cement. Part of this is coming from our other technologies that we already have in place. Part of that depends on the carbon sequestration. So after 2030, it's clear for the industry that we need to develop or we need to have in place a red technologies to secure state carbon. In this aspect, a good initiative that we already have inside the global cement and concrete association is the INNOVANDI. INNOVANDI is a research network that again brings together all the cement industry to deliver new technologies, to invest together in technologies to face these challenges. Going to the technologies that are already in place and a part of this decarbonization for the sector, we can talk about the replace of fossil fuels by waste. It's something that we do a lot. We use a lot of dangerous waste, biomass, tires in the end of life. It can replace the fossil fuel and brings important CO2 reduction. Also, clinker substitution. So if you can replace clinker, that's the main raw material for cement by its leg, fly ash, limestone. It's also an important lever to decrease CO2. And this is just a little bit of details about the cement road map in Brazil. In Brazil, we have more opportunities in terms of clinker substitution and also the use of biomass. I want to share one example with you. And so we depend a little bit less on carbon sequestration, what's good because the technology is still expensive and is still in development. I would like also to mention the importance of the financial market in this decarbonization. So we in Brazil were the first company to have this kind of operation that's a revolved credit facility. So what it means? We took as along 290 million dollars from a pool of banks and our interest rate is related with our performance and sustainability. So we have targets defined. If we meet these targets, we pay less. If you don't meet these targets, we have a penalty. So we understand that it brings sustainability for a new level of discussion and it helps a lot, the company's moving forward. Just going quickly because I am losing my time. Alternative fuels nowadays, as Valtorantin company, we are rather replace 18% of the fuel, the fossil fuel by wastes. An interesting example using biomass that's really good for reducing carbon emission come from the use of acai. Acai is a well-known fruit from the Amazon. It's good for the forest because it improves the profits that the communities can make from the forest without cutting the forest. So, but most of the fruit, 80% of the fruit is the pits. And what we used to use nowadays is just the poop. So all these seeds were being land-filled and having problems. What we are doing is bringing these seeds for the cement plant and using that as biomass. So in 2019, we are using more than 100 tons, almost 100 tons of seeds a year. What there comes with a reduction of 117 tons of CO2. And if you also consider the indirect CO2, the CO2 equivalent from methane, we are talking about more 200 tons of CO2 a year. Cement issues, we are also decreasing the amount of clinker, pozzolan, calcined clay is an alternative as is lag and fly ash will be less available in the future. This is a product that can replace clinker and comparing with clinker, it has 43% less CO2 emissions. Just to finalize my presentation, CO2 captured an important part of our role. And we have a pilot project in Canada that uses micro algae to sequestrate carbon. So we take the fuel, the flue gas, put directing in this reactor by photosynthesis, it becomes biofuel and then we can use it to produce biofuels or something else. So I hope this help in the discussion to understand how cement can move forward in the aligned with Paris Agreement. Thank you so much. Thank you. And I'm giving the stage to Martin Pei from the Swedish team. Thank you very much. Good afternoon everyone. I'm very happy to present an initiative that we have been running in Sweden since three years back. The steel industry is one of the heavy industries that is regarded as difficult to abate sector. One of the main reasons for the CO2 emission from the industry originates from the reduction of iron ore. And in Sweden we have been working with this process development work for many, many decades. And the blast furnace process has been developed to a point where we are running them very close to what is theoretically possible. We have made many significant development steps. One of the major steps that were taken in Sweden was done in the beginning of 1980s, when LKB, the mining company and SSAB, the steel company together developed this very specialized iron ore palace that we can use in our blast furnaces. And it resided in that we shut down interplants in our production sites. So the iron ore palace are now made in the iron ore mines in northern parts of Sweden. And these are superb qualities that we are making. The blast furnace is very, very efficient. That step still is very unique today if you look at the steel industry. So SSAB runs all five blast furnaces without using Sinter. So we are now setting the benchmark for the European Union's emission right treating system. If you look at the graph below on this chart, our blast furnaces are among the best in the world if you compare with the different regions. But still this is still not enough. The blast furnace itself, if you look at what we can do further, in the blast furnace today we use metallurgical coke and coal that we inject as a fuel. We can still do some more steps to improve the fuel consumption if you replace the injection coal with hydrogen or natural gas or plastics, recycle plastics or use more electricity. That can be done, but still the coke can't be done because the furnace is, the process works with coke. Without coke, this process doesn't work. A further way to continue with using coal is to apply the CSS or CCU technology that can partly solve the issue. What we did back in 2016 in Sweden, we decided to gather SSAB with LKB and Wattenfall to investigate the possibility to use hydrogen instead of coal to make the ion reduction and the mixed yield. SSAB today is the largest company in both Sweden and Finland in terms of CO2 emission. But in Sweden we have also very good opportunity because the electricity mix is today already decarbonized and we have plenty access also biomass. So we decided to look into a process replacing coal using hydrogen instead. This was a study made back in 2017. We came to a conclusion that the hydrogen-based technology is interesting, so we decided to make pilot plant investment project. We then made a further study on the way and decided to really move ahead with technology. Now we have made a roadmap that we will shut down all our blast furnaces and convert into this new technology and all the three companies will decarbonize and get to a fossil-free situation already in 2045. So this is our very aggressive time plan and we made a start of construction of the pilot plant in northern part of Sweden in Lidl, with Swedish prime minister. And we are now doing this construction for the pilotizing projects starting in the iron ore, making the pilotizing process fossil-free as a first step using bioenergy instead. And then we are now constructing the pilot plant for direct reduction using hydrogen. We are also making a project for hydrogen storage. So we are going to test the lined rock-caven technology to store hydrogen on a large scale. We are also starting test campaigns for melting this type of DRI in an electric oven in order to make high-quality steel. This is the pilot plant that photo-taken last week. We are now constructing this pilot plant. It's a one-ton per hour capacity test facility. We'll be ready next summer for testing this new technology. So we believe that the hybrid technology can work and we are now making plans for building the first demonstration-scale facility which will be in operation in 2025. So our plan is to start introducing fossil-free steel products in the market from 2026. This is a very ambitious time plan but we believe this can work, provided that we have the policy instruments supporting such a transition. So the Green New Deal, the European Union right now is going to be very important. We believe also that the European Union's long-term strategy and also climate law will be important. The industrial strategy will need to support such type of transition. Access to fossil-free electricity will be the key enabler for such transition. And hydrogen infrastructure that is right now under discussion in Europe is going to be also very important. At the same time, the hybrid project will also create a great opportunity to make the hydrogen economy established in many places. So this is just a short overview of what we're doing in Sweden. This is a very, say, high-ambition joint project that we are doing with the three industry companies, SSAB, the steel producer, LKB, the iron ore company and Vattenfall, who is the Swedish electricity supplier. So we are now moving on making the transition happening. So hopefully this will inspire many others to look into this possibility for the future transition of this very important industry. Thank you. Thank you, Martin. And now the stage of your feedback that comes from Columbia University. Thank you very much. I'm really delighted to be here. We are in the industrial building. I'm delighted to be able to talk about this subject here. Thank you so much for having me. I'm going to be the guy who tells you all the bad news. So let's start with the fact that I wanted to focus a couple of years ago on heat. I wanted to focus on industrial heat because I heard some idiots saying that we can electrify everything. And I said, I know that's not true. So what can we do? And so I said, let's go after heat. Heat's hard. Heat's a hard thing to do. Most of the industrial process, including the industrial processes up here, start by melting a rock. If you melt a rock, you need heat. So what can you do? And it turns out that just the heat-related emissions from heavy industry are more than all the cars and planes in the world. Yes, you never thought of it that way. All the heat from heavy industry is more than all the cars and planes in the world. And I daresay we've spent a little more time thinking about cars and planes than we have about industrial heat. So the question is what can you do? We can admire the problem or we can try to do something. And so we started getting into this and we realized a couple of things. First of all, heavy industry is not the industrial sector. A lot of people who enter the decarbonization standpoint think about it from the perspective of power because they've spent their lives working on decarbonizing power, which is a good and important and virtuous thing to do. They're not the same. Most commodities are consumed globally, not locally. So a very small change in price completely affects market shares. Most of these companies are also working with assets that are extremely long-lived, as we heard earlier, and are also very expensive to replace. In addition, these are generally considered essential national industries. The steel industry in South Korea is not just something they do. It is a huge part of their economy. And most people don't see it. Most people see power. Most people see cars. Most people see planes and fuels. Most people don't go to the store and buy 10,000 tons of concrete. So the question is, how do you get this in people's eyes and minds? It's a hard challenge. The really bad news is we do not have a lot of options. And the people up here have mentioned that and they're working on good options and I'm delighted to see it. But we don't have a lot of options and we need better and more. And what we found most daunting as we started all of this work was that there was no data. There was no data. You couldn't go out and find it. Nobody goes out and buys heat and they don't recognize it in the industrial settings like everything's set forward in tons or kilowatts. They're not gigajoules. So it was really hard to start working on this project. The good news, though, is that we have good news. There's some more bad news. The most important thing about heavy industry is the high temperatures required. This is what makes it so hard to electrify and it makes it so hard to deposit the heat in the reactors. So steel starts at 1200 degrees Celsius. Cement is 1450 Celsius. There are not a lot of options to do that. Biomass can do it with biogas. That can hit that temperature. Electrical resistance heating actually can reach that temperature. You just can't put the heat in the reactor. So that's a problem. Hydrogen can do it. Nuclear can't. Nuclear is not hot enough. So that's a pretty small deck. There's not that many things you can do. So we sent out to do a big techno economic analysis. Please come to our website and download the report. These are the punch lines. I've gone through the first ones today and I'll sort of unpack the later ones as we go. One of the things to recognize, and this has already been said, is actually when you look at the comparison of options for deep decarbonization, carbon capture and storage ends up being important. It ends up being the thing you have to do. If you want to get deep emissions, that's one of the things. Okay, well, we can do that. Also, low-carbon hydrogen ends up being really important. We saw that already with Martin Payne's presentation. It's one of the things that we saw from our other presentation. Low-carbon hydrogen is important. There's lots of ways to get it. That's fine. In all cases, we're going to need better policies. The markets can't deliver this today. We just need a new set of policies that can protect domestic industries or provide large enough incentives to finance, do whatever it is we need to do. So we had not seen anything like this before, so we made it. Basically blue ones are low-carbon footprint, red ones are not so low-carbon footprint, we just put it up in cost per gigajoule. This is everything. These are all the options. And basically, this line here, the first line is U.S. price of gas, and that line is European price of gas. So the first thing you should see is all the options cost a lot more than gas. That makes it hard. Okay. Another thing you can find is that many of the options need CCS. For example, low-carbon hydrogen, in most markets, is CCS. And the reason why that's true is because most places do not have cheap low-carbon power. Sweden is an exception. Sweden does have cheap low-carbon power. America does not. China does not. So that makes it hard to use there. And even things that you think would be straightforward, like biodiesel or hydropower making hydrogen and stuff, like most markets, it just doesn't work. So the good news is that this is something we actually can and do know how to do. So this is the carbon footprint for power in the United States. And this is actually, I'm sorry, not the carbon footprint. I pulled the carbon footprint slide. It's terrible. It's not even worth looking at. This is the cost. So this is what the cost for a firm industrial power contract looks like in the U.S. This is not a 3 cent per kilowatt hour solar panel in Chile. This is what the actual industrial firm power price is. So when you want power in 90% capacity back to 24 hours a day, that's the price you pay, basically $50 to $120 a megawatt hour with a median price close to 70. So that's quite expensive, actually. And we are not close to having zero-carbon, firm, cheap power yet. So we need to work on that, too. Lots of good people are working on that. We know it. But until we have this, electrification remains a challenge because it's not cheap or carbon-free. So let's talk about hydrogen. I'm a big fan of hydrogen. We make hydrogen today at enormous scales. It's a globally used commodity, and it's pretty cheap. The cost of making hydrogen today is about $1.20 a kilogram, and that's good. That, for the record, is more than the cost of natural gas by quite a bit, but we know how to make it at an enormous volume. We also vent the CO2 from steam methane reformers today. That all goes up into the air and oceans, and that's bad. If you wanted to capture that carbon, what we call blue hydrogen, you can do that today. It adds about 20% to the cost. That's more than people want to pay, but it's not like a huge amount of money. We wouldn't know how to do that. You can't do it everywhere, but you can do it in most industrial ports. You can do it in Rotterdam, you can do it in Texas, you can do it in Tianjin, you can do it in Aberdeen, like there's places you can do it today because we have the storage. If you tried to do the same thing with renewable power, in US markets it's really unattractive, and in most markets it's not going to pan out. It's a factor of four in many markets. It's a factor of 10 more expensive, but that's okay. Green hydrogen is getting cheaper. The cost of electrolyzers is dropping. The cost of green power is dropping. Eventually green power will be firm, and the cost will be cheap enough to move into the business. I look forward to that day. We can start with blue hydrogen now, make hydrogen with no carbon emissions, and then as green hydrogen becomes increasingly cheaper, we can just bring it into the market as an on-ramp and make hydrogen go from blue to turquoise to green over time. We also just wanted to say, we've talked about these things in dollars per gigajoule, but nobody goes out and buys gigajoules either, they buy steel. What do these things look like for real? Here, just prices, if we took various kinds of heat, electrical resistance heating from the grid in the United States or from the grid in Europe, or if you use biomass, use really good blue hydrogen or not so good blue hydrogen, use renewable hydrogen, or if you just did CCS on just the heat, or if you did CCS on the full plant and got the process emissions too. You're just like, what does it do to the price of the commodity? Because that's what people really want to know. How much more do we pay? So this is for clinker, and this is the price for 25% increase, 50% increase, 100% price increase, and that line there is $8 gas, which is Asia price or something like that. So most of these options, more than double the price of production wholesale concrete, more than double the wholesale price. That's what the deal is. Interesting fact though, it does not double the price of the product. It doubles the price wholesale, but not the finished good. So for example, if you built a bridge out of concrete, bridges mostly concrete, price of the bridge goes up 1% if you double the cost of concrete. This means that government procurement is a very strong policy option because the government buys 50% of the concrete of the world. It could add this. Most of the cost of a bridge is labor and time and land and design and all these other kinds of things. Sanding is true for steel. Sanding is true for steel. Steel is not so bad, but steel is more expensive. Steel is 300 bucks a ton. So that's the price for European gas, 25%, 50%, 100% price increase. Again, the cheap options, CCS, on hydrogen, great. And it basically adds quite a bit to the price, but again, if you double the price of steel, you increase the price of a car by 2%. The finished good is not that much more expensive. This gives us policy options to consider. Sanding was something like methanol. Here again, CCS ends up being useful. It ends up being cheap. It ends up being not so bad. So what are our recommendations? First of all, we got to focus on this. There aren't research programs on industrial heat anywhere in the world. We should be working on this. That's a good thing to do. Second, we need more and better options. CCS is likely to prove important. I'm not satisfied with that. You shouldn't be either. We're going to need better options that are cheaper and more effective. And the last thing is we're going to need lots of policies, including things like government procurement, and they seem kind of effective, and they seem actionable today. We need a whole lot more innovation, though. If we think we're going to solve this problem with the tools we have today, we're kidding ourselves. We know that's not true. And we need to work on this a whole lot more if we're going to solve the problem. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, Fabio. Okay, I think we have a little bit of time to have one question to everybody. But in your estimation, which is the real time scale we are facing in our business to have the decarbonization. For the steel industry, the time aspect is very important because facilities normally are having an economic lifespan of very, very long. For blast furnace, for example, it's normally 15 years when you make a reinvestment. It will run 24-7 for 15 years. And then you make a stop, and then you make a new investment. It will run another 15 years. For a coke oven plant, which is the blast furnace process, it's based on a normal lifetime, it's around 50 years. So if we really want to achieve the transition, we really need to start now because otherwise we will be locked in for another 50 years, which will be too late. Right, I completely agree with that. That's also true for cement kilns. That's also true for petrochemical plants and tractors. They are very long-lived capital stocks. It's part of the reason why we focused on retrofit or modification of existing plants because if you wait until you replace the plants with a new kind of technology, we have real problems. And again, hybrid being a notable example, in Sweden, the circumstances on the ground actually favor early replacement. But in fact, that's what you're competing against. You're competing against the teardown cost of an existing asset, and it's a very high hurdle. I think in terms of the real timeline of this, we're probably going to have five more years of fumbling around while the governments of the world can't figure out how to tie their shoes and EU tries to figure out how to balance between Spain and Poland, and that's real work and it's a problem. After five years, everybody here is going to be at risk. You know, everybody here is going to be at risk and there's going to be some crazy version of carbon border adjustments or people lashing themselves to, you know, dump trucks. There's going to be some crazy extreme action. There's going to be volatility in financial markets. There's going to be questions about assets. The labor unions are going to get into it. It's going to be really, really hard. And in that context, I think we have maybe five years to figure out what we want to do, and then we've got to execute pretty much right away. Yes, if I complement this answer. One question is how long it will take for the industrial sector to abate CO2 emissions to a given point that could be useful for the whole picture, because every sector is different. So if you go to mobility, of course mobility, we have seen this morning, you can change the landscape of cities in 10 years between the horses and the internal combustion machine. So mobility, maybe it's easier to reach CO2 abatement faster than industrial facilities that requires investment of decades to be really the return of the investment. So the question is that we need to do now, because there are even some people that say that the degrees that it will be rich from the point in the nineties could be even already like what we have emitting now is 1.3 Celsius, so we'll have two decimals of error. So that means that we need to start now to do anything, everything, not only in the sector, in all the sectors. Some sectors will do it faster, some sectors will do it slower, because of the nature of the processes. It's not the same to change a car that would change a factory. And then I also agree that we have to move now with all the technologies that could be available. Everybody, so all the meat on the load. Not thinking about this is good, this is bad. Look, I have an illness, I'm sick. I take a pill. Even if I know that this pill has some effects that maybe are not the good ones that have at the end. Just to add something, I think from the cement point of view it's true the same logic, but luckily we have different options. We have something that we can start now that's already feasible like fuel substitution, replacement for wastes, biomass as I showed, clinker replacement as well, work with better use, efficiency in construction. We have a lot of inefficiency, a lot of wastes in the process of construction. We want to work with the whole value chain to bring more efficiency. So these are things that we can start now. And then different technologies that we need for the long term, then we have time still to put efforts on that and to have that develop in 2030 or so when we really need that. Okay, thank you. So I'll let you to thank all the group of these panelists. Thank you for coming and for your attention. Thanks.