 So let me just start by saying that the European Climate Foundation I guess is a mystery to you and it's in principle a fund based on philanthropic money. Trying to work as an enabler for the decarbonization of Europe. So it's a very wide thing that we have been taking on. And what we are doing is that we work with different parts of society and responsible for power and we have been working a lot with the power industry, the TSOs, the power companies, the NGOs and try to build up some sort of common understanding of what needs to happen. I will try to in 15 minutes give a very broad overview on my general experiences and I just wanted to start by showing this that renewables is about going from imagination to reality. I've worked for many years at Wadenfall, I started a Swedish utility, I started there in the end of the 80s. Then Wadenfall was running a minor research program on wind, had some wind turbines on an island somewhere. When I left Wadenfall 20 years later on renewables was a major part of the operations of the investments. The company invested billions a year investing in UK, in Germany, in Sweden, in Denmark offered solar energy to the customers. So I would say that part of this have already happened. We have already seen this building up and renewables and a more sustainable power system is on its way. But of course it takes time. So my second starting point is this. What is this all about? It's not about that we are running out of energy. We discussed shale gas earlier on. This is a very interesting overview I found in a report from the World Energy Council 2004. If you look into the situation today you would say that this part is even bigger with shale gas. But what I wanted to say that it's not as such, it's a resource problem. It's about what is acceptable in society. That is what is driving this development. There are enormous, I think there are two things you should remember. There are enormous amounts of renewables. In principle we can view them as unlimited from a global perspective. And the other thing is that we will not at such run out of fossils. They will be outcompeted and that is on its way. So let me then go into the sort of work we have been doing. 2010 ECF published a study called The Roadmap 2050. Built on a major work done together with many, many partners. We analyzed the situation. What needs to happen in the time perspective 2015 in Europe and what can happen. And I will just go through some highlights. First of all we could really prove that an 80% reduction on the European level is feasible but it's challenging of course. And that it will take a 95% decarbonization for the power system. So in principle that power system need to be decarbonized. We also as a part of this effort running a power system model for Europe. And could demonstrate that it's possible to do this in different ways. We worked with different generic combinations of renewables. From 40 renewables to 60 and 80. We even looked into 100% case. And you can see that there are all three pathways are fully possible. If you want to have to decarbonize or have 100% renewables you will need to use more chemical resources and you will need to use some to interconnect to Northern Africa. You can also see that there are no major cost differences but what will have to change is that the capital investments will be up enormously. So that cost mix will change totally. And in principle a system with 80% or more renewables will be in principle a capacity cost. The cost around the system will be very low. I would say today if you take the European average it's a 50% mixture between capex and optics. The decarbonized system will perhaps be 90, 10 or something like that. On the margin you will always have some sort of thermal capacity. And then there are of course with more renewables implications. Intermittency to avoid curtailment and so on will be more demanding but it's fully possible. I will come back to that a little bit later that you need to invest in transmission capacity. And the transmission capacity is a minor part of the total cost. And the macroeconomic effect is minor I would say. It's not so and I will come back to that also that you can see that this will destroy the European economy in any way if you do it in the right way. So it's a very big part about how it's implemented. It's not about if it's implemented. The direction is clear but the demanding thing is to handle the transition. So this is one way of showing the outcome of the different alternatives. You have the 2050, 40, 60, 80% renewables. The rest is CCS and nuclear. So it's 30, 30, 20, 20, 10, 10 here. And you see that you can in principle fill out all this with wind and solar. But if you look into this situation you have still a thermal system dominated. So you see that how the different contributions, the variations in the different contributions would change enormously. We should at the same time be aware that we are discussing 40 years, the situation 40 years ahead. So there are a lot of innovations that will come in. So I'm quite convinced myself that we will see more advanced storage, for example, coming in because that will create value in the system. There is nothing that is available today if you try to stay real. And this is in principle what you see if you're trying to look into what sort of costs you have. So the baseline that is a conservative business as usual combination is the variations are bigger in that than in the decarbonized pathways if you take them all. So that is a little bit to show that there is not a fundamental change in cost. The problem is that costs will be up anyway. And that is a hard sell to the general public. So based on that then this was a very short version of a study that took us a year and a lot of resources. We started to look into where do we need to be 2030 because 2050 is so far away so it's hard to see the implications. What are we going to do? What will be the next steps? So 2011 we have the same group of different participants. We looked into 2030 based on decarbonization level in the economy. In general on the level 40% that will mean 60% of the power sector. And on the average around 50% renewables. That means that renewables will be the dominating power source. And I won't go into details here. I just wanted to show you what we did here was to run a power system model. This is not real grids. It's capacity between centers of gravity. We used 45 centers of gravity all over Europe. Run a power system model hour by hour. What sort of resources do you need to have to balance the system? You see that you need transmission capacity to be up enormously. This is interesting for you. You will need enormous capacity. There are some places here. Of course, as I say, this is not the grid. It's the capacity you need. In reality you will implement this based on different sort of investments. Subsea cables and such will come in. But the interesting result is that you look into the overall cost. You see that the CAPEX cost for transmission and backup is a minor. And the cost for running the backup is also minor. So the cost to achieve this is less than 10% of the total cost. We have 16 different scenarios. I will just show you one slide. But you see that investments in the system that is backup and transmission creates an enormous value. It's a minor part of the total effort. But it's quite hard to achieve due to different reasons. We can come back to that in the discussion. After we have published our studies, the European Commission came up with their energy roadmap in 2050. Done in a very different way, with a very different model. A combination of an engineering model and a macroeconomic model. But in principle, confirming the same results. What you see is first of all that the role of electricity in the total energy system will have to grow substantially. If you are going for a decarbonized, more sustainable system. It will be up from around 20 today. Defined as final energy demand to up to 40. That confirms the results that we got out of our study. The Commission worked with five different scenarios with different combinations. A major effort in energy efficiency. A diversified combination, high-res, delayed CCS, low-nuclear. But the interesting result is that you see that the share of renewables in the time perspective up to 2030 will in principle be the same. Then you will see them growing in a little bit different directions. So whatever, this is renewables in general, it's not in power. The renewables share in power will be much bigger. It will be, I would say, around 50%. So this contains also biofuels or transports. The other big issue. The first study we made, we assumed that you electrified transportation to a big extent. And you see what will happen to costs. They will be in principle. You have what is called the current policy initiative. And then the five different scenarios. You see there are no major differences in costs. Before around 2030-2035, they say that if you go for even more rest, it will be more expensive. I will say that this is doubtful because it's much more uncertain. There will be a lot of innovation. But as I said before, it indicates clearly that there are no major... It's not a cost issue as such. And what will happen is that you will see if you invest in renewables, and we have partly already seen that is that a lot of innovation will come out of that. And that will go in three different stages, I would say. But productivity will be up. Falling prices, we have already seen that for some of our power to the extreme, will lead to more investments. And expand the economy and the productivity will continue to increase. And that will cause significant improvements in productivity in all sectors. So it's about starting a positive development, leading to a more sustainable but also more competitive economy. We have recently asked PEWC to look into, if you take three examples, Denmark, Germany and Sweden, that have decarbonized enormously. And can you say that they are less competitive? This is unpublished material. But what is really interesting is that first of all, if you look into the decarbonization process, this is the OECD average. And this is Denmark, Germany and Sweden. You see that you have, first of all in the OECD, such a tremendous reduction in carbon intensity over time. We have looked over 40 years for, there is a long cycle you have to look into. But you also see that these, all these three economies have been outperforming. Have they been less competitive? No. There are three of the most competitive economies in Europe, I would say, today. So here you see the GDP, you see the reduction in emissions, and you see the energy, the energy intensity. So you see that they have all been able to, in absolute terms, partly in relative terms, decouple from growing energy and carbon intensity. There are much more to say about this, but this is just a little bit to prove the case that from what I can see, you cannot even prove that there is a conflict. If you are able, and all those three countries, I would say, have a rich history in energy policy, really rich. You know that from Denmark, and I know it from Sweden, and I know it's the same in Germany. What is interesting is, when you look into those economies, it didn't start 1970 as a decolonisation method. It started as a competitive or a security of supply issue. And then you can see that the three different objectives have been fluctuating difference over time. But it has led in the same direction. That is, I think, what we will see on the European level also, but you cannot pick out decarbonisation and sustainability. You have to relate it to security of supply and to competitiveness. And in principle, I would say that it's at least not a conflict. So let me run by going back to this 2050 study that we did. We tried to look into the full cost per energy in 2020, 2030, 2050. And here you see what the figures have disappeared. When I sounded it disappeared, I have to go back to my slide. So what you see here is the baseline cases, and here you see the decarbonised pathway. There you see that the cost will be down the line. Here it will be down close to 80 and here minus 25%. And you also see that this is power. You see that power will be up enormously as a part of the total and as a part of the total cost. So I just have to sort out my papers here. So once again I would say that going for a more sustainable economy, a more sustainable power system for more renewables is definitely not a cost issue as such. On the other hand, I would say that you can prove that you can know the cost of the time. But the crucial thing is that the cost will be very, very different. So just to finalise, I would say that we know that the tools laid at our feet, we know what to do. In the very end it's up to us to our ability to implement the solution but also our ability to cooperate, because it's very clear that you need to cooperate over borders, you need to cooperate in regions, but you also need cooperation on the European level. For it's very, very hard for a single country to implement that on their own. If you want to find out more about the studies we have been doing, you will be able to have the whole page here. Thanks.