 Because none of this is going to happen without money. So we turn to private equity, Nicolas Villar from Tilt Capital Market. Yeah, thank you very much. So I don't know if I'm part of the problem or the solution, but as a private equity investor. So hi, everyone. Very happy to be here. I think it's, you know, it's very thrilling to talk after Frank and Franklin because they are solutions. I think we need to think that's what you come to your two presentations come to the same issue. Let's deal with reality. I think reality starts with what you also mentioned at the very beginning, Franklin, is today 600 exogels of primary energy consumption, 500 is oil, gas and coal. And that's the very, very hard reality. Then you turn to electricity, which I agree is a part of the issue, not the part. By the way, in Europe, gas consumption is as large for power production as it is for industry applications. So really it's a heat is a large problem. If you turn to power out of the, and I'm not going to bore you with too many figures, but out of the 27,000 terawatt hours globally, 20 are based on coal and no, sorry, a bit less 17 are based on coal and gas. So when yesterday, Laurent Fabius very rightly so said that probably in two to three years, renewables is going to overtake coal. It's actually in terms of capacity, not in terms of energy produced. And that's very, very different. So that's the reality. Now the challenges, and I think you both alluded to that, the challenges, when you talked about energy density, the three industrial revolutions that we've undergone were all based on increased energy per capita. First one was indeed coal, roughly 20 megajol per kilo, then oil and gas, 40, then nuclear, 80 terajol per kilo. The real challenge that we are experiencing and it's fundamental in the way we think the energy system is that we are moving away from those energy dense technologies to energy undense technologies. And so it becomes not a matter of production, it becomes a matter of logistics and optimization. You have much more solar energy that comes to the earth than any other form of energy. The problem is not whether you have the energy, the problem is how do you harness it? And then, of course, comes the issue of how do you harness it and use it adequately? Because if you want to have industrial application 24 hours a day, you're not going to be relying on sun solely. So for example, you have batteries, storage technologies coming into play. Again, let's be clear. The energy density of a battery is one megajol per kilogram on average. So it's 40 times lower than oil and gas. And so we need to understand that this challenge is massive. We had a system that was built on big energy dense production capacity, transportation distribution and consumption. And we're just, we're frankly, we're just making this totally explode. Now what it means, and this is where I'm trying to just do and bear with me, it's a view. I'm going to give you a view of what I think the technologies, how the technologies are going to transform that in sequence. First, and I think Laurent Fabius yesterday said something very important. He as an investor, we focus on the next 10 years, because indeed in the long term, we're all dead. So how do we get on the Paris Agreement trajectory in the next 10 years? And I think this is critical. On our side, we see two elements. First, you need to get rid of coal. And I'm going to get back to your point on nuclear, but we need to get rid of coal. Coal is 12 gigaton of CO2 every year. It's 20% of GAG emissions alone. We need to get rid of coal, and we're going to see the implications of that afterwards. Second, we need to get rid of methane fugitive emissions. And I'm just going to pause here. I'm not saying we need to get rid of gas, because I think gas is an element of transition because if we want to get rid of coal in the absence of nuclear, which is basically developed in at best 15 years, we need gas as an energy transition vector. But fugitive emissions are roughly 350 million tons every year. That represents 20 gigaton of CO2 equivalent because of the short lifespan in the atmosphere. So CO2 is a stock problem. We need to reduce CO2. Methane is a flow problem. If we manage to reduce fugitive emissions, we immediately have a very strong impact in the next 10 years in terms of GAG emissions. Now the problem is, in the same time as we're developing all those great technologies, solar, wind, and I'm just going back on your question, I think renewables is an absolute must. The issue is, I always used to take that example in the oil and gas. You don't drill in Switzerland because you don't have taxes. You drill in Norway, where taxes are 78%, because you have oil and gas. Same thing for me in renewables. You don't build renewables because you have tariffs. You don't build renewables because it makes energy sense, economic sense. So you build where you have resource. You do massive offshore when you're in the British islands, in the northern part of Germany. You do solar when you're in Spain and Italy and of course in Chile and other parts of the world, here in the Middle East. Do you really do solar massively in Germany? In my view, I don't think so. It can be a solution, but it's totally marginal. How do you replace that bulk power of coal and then gas? I think nuclear is certainly a solution. So small modular reactors, one of the main advantages of that is instead of developing a project, the main feature of this is that it's industrialized. So the big interest of small modular reactor is that you actually industrialize the reactor and then you set it up on process terms, I would say. Whereas any reactor that has been developed apart from the French nuclear program the last four years has been basically a project on its own. Then I think we need to, in terms of technologies, hydrogen and e-fuels are going to be absolutely critical. We agree, and that should happen in the next two to three years. One issue I see with hydrogen, very high gravimetric density, so energy per kilogram, three times that of oil and gas, very low volumetric density, a third of gas. So there's an issue of transportation, storage, et cetera, but it will certainly be part of the problem. In my view, much more for industrial application than pure energy, I would say pure energy production or fuel cells or whatever. And then I think there's one thing that must not be overlooked. It's how are we going to manage that from a power perspective on the grid? And on this, I would say the emerging technologies that we see are grid enhancing technologies. So everything that will allow the grid, the system, to accommodate for larger share of intermittent renewable energy. And here you have a number of things that are being developed super interesting from dynamic line ratings. So basically looking really at the amount of energy that a line can transport according to weather conditions and according to the sagging of the line, et cetera, power flow controls. So I'm not going to enter too much into that, but there are a number of technologies, these technologies are being developed and they need to be developed right now. And then if we move to 2050, in my view, there is the big elephant in the room, which is nuclear fusion. And there are a lot of things going on right now. You may have seen the series Bs of Commonwealth fusion system, 1 billion. There are great companies in Europe, Renaissance Power. There's the ITER work that is extremely important to mature this industry. And I will just end here on one note on the geopolitics because I think it's also the implication. And I will turn to two things. One is, I would say, solidarity and the other one is integration. And when I say solidarity, I'm going to take an example that's probably a bit rough in the current situation. I'm going to talk about Russian gas. Of course, Russian gas is an issue. And yesterday I heard, you know, the EU was short-sighted. No, I'm sorry, I don't agree with that. I've been working in this industry for years. We knew that there was, you know, we knew we were making a little bit of exposure to Russian gas. The issue is what Europe, what choice Europe did Europe have? I don't think we were short-sighted. I don't think the issue was Russian gas. The issue is Putin regime. The Gazprom delivered gas for 70 years without a hiccup even when the Berlin Wall fell, even when the Soviet Union fell. So the issue is not Russian gas. The issue is a regime. And as a European, I don't think we should rejoice from cutting Russia from part of its revenues abruptly and having Russia in shambles at the doorstep of Europe. It's much easier for the US. They have oceans on each border. But I think from a geopolitical perspective, we need to work with Russia, not Putin. We need to work with Russia to see how we organize that transition. The second thing is integration. I think yesterday Kaldun Al-Mubarak said something very important on supply chains. Yes, we need to reindustrialize in different parts of the world. Because again, we need to have things that make sense locally. But we need to have trusted, I think he used the term, trusted supply chain. I think it's very important. Today the energy transition means that we are reorganizing all the supply chain in the exposures. How are we going to do that? Frankly, I don't really know. I know we have an issue of exposure to China on key materials, key pieces of equipment. This needs to be dealt with. It's not a defiance against China, it's just a reality. Now to do that, we need to take account externalities that are social justice, environmental sustainability, etc. And I'm going to end on that note. I think what we are missing is that our investment models do a very poor job to actually account for those social and environmental externalities. And until we do that, I think we will have a difficulty coming up with sound and sustainable energy policies. Thank you very much. I'm very conscious of the time because the previous panel obviously went overboard a little bit. So we will, I think, probably try and steal a bit from lunch. I hope we won't be too hungry. But just one quick question before I ask to sum up. Nicola, you say in your website that the energy transition in Europe is an investment market of about 500 billion euros a year. That's quite an impressive number. How much, I mean, it's a great target. How much of it is actually being reached? Oh, we're very far from it. We have 10 billion or what? We were 160 billion investment per year in 18. I think we went up to 200 billion and we actually should be investing 600 billion. So the failure is at the government level or actually the private sector? Well, I think the issue is that if you put 600 billion per year at a, and I'm going to be very blunt, at a 15% return on capital employed and the costs are going through the roof. And I think we need to understand that the real gain that we're having from that is also, again, externality. If we're trying to price in the same way as we've priced before, we are going to have problem because the cost of energy is going to be unsustainable in Europe and elsewhere. Yeah, thank you.