Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to welcome you all here. Thank you all for coming out on a Friday morning. I know you are anxious to hear our guest, Jean-Francois Gagnet, from the IEA, who has been at the IEA for two and a half years now as Head of Energy Technology Policy Division. We are really pleased to have Jean-Francois here to present the IEA's Energy Technology Perspectives 2015 report. This year, as you know and as appropriate, focusing in on the climate issues as we approach the Conference of the Parties meeting in Paris in December. So really looking forward to hearing Jean-Francois's remarks. I think I have met everyone. I am Guy Caruso from the Energy and National Security Program here at CSIS, and we have been host to a number of IEA Energy Technology meetings, including Energy Efficiency Reports, and we are going to have actually another one coming up in October with the Efficiency Market. So that partnership has been, I think, a strong one, and maybe not the least because of my history there at the IEA. I think a lot of people who know the IEA don't appreciate or maybe don't have the understanding of how deep the Energy Technology component of the IEA's work has been all really back to the mid-70s. It has been a number of technology agreements that the IEA has implemented with both member countries and nonmember countries. And I think there are three things about the program. One, there is participation by countries like China, India, and others who are extremely important. As you will hear from Jean-Francois, today China was a focus of one of the case studies in this report. And there has also been, I think, a strong partnership between public and private sector in the area of technology in these work of the IEA. And thirdly, it is in the area that we are going to talk about today, climate and more broadly, environmental energy and environment. Technology can play such an important role, and that is the message you are going to hear. I know, but I can't overemphasize it because of the long-term nature of the climate issues and broader technical and environmental issues. So we are extremely pleased to have Jean-Francois Gagnier here. He has been with the IEA, as I mentioned, in the couple of two and a half years. He is currently acting Office Director until a new Office Director can be appointed after the DDA Hussein left several months ago. So, Jean-Francois, we are extremely pleased that you are here and looking forward to your remarks, and then we will have a Q&A session. So you don't think I am being unfriendly. I am going to go down there and watch your PowerPoints where I can see them more efficiently. All right. Well, thank you very much for this introduction. And yes, actually, I thank you. It is great that you want to go down there. That means I am about to present a question that I am probably interested to more than just looking at the crowd. I want to say hello to everyone, and thank you for, as Guy mentioned, taking some time in your busy agendas, as I think I will prepare for summer to come and watch some of the findings that I am about to present. I want to give a special thanks to CSIS for organizing this event, but also, as Guy mentioned, for the long-term relationship that we have had and the help in organizing these events so that the information that we try to produce and co-late can actually be disseminated to those who can actually act upon it. So I am very, very grateful for that and very happy to be here. As Guy mentioned, my position within the IAEA is I am the head of the Energy Technology Policy Division. So within this division, what we do is we manage all of the IAEA's technology policy analysis, but also all of the multilateral collaboration work. So we have a network of over 6,000 scientists that work together in 40 different fields underneath the IAEA umbrella, and I am responsible for the coordination of all this work. And so within that part of the work, we do get access to a lot of privileged information because these are experts that come from academia, from industry, from governments, you know, as Guy mentioned, from member and nonmember countries. So with that information, we try to evaluate what the role of technology can be in enabling a long-term energy transition. Now also, as Guy mentioned, one of the things with the IAEA is we are not a climate agency. We are an energy agency. So our purpose isn't just to focus on mitigating carbon emissions. Our purpose is to try to find a way to move the energy system to a long-term sustainable pathway, which means providing efficient and secure energy, affordable energy, and then energy that doesn't have a long-term impact on economic growth. And so it's with this type of analysis that we try to figure out what the role of the energy system is in terms of providing a long-term sustainable growth pathway that we do this specific analysis on energy technology. We also manage a series of technology roadmaps that allow stakeholders to come together and really find a step-by-step approach to achieving some of these goals. And I won't be talking too much about that today, but what I'm going to show today is kind of the underlying word that identify the vision that we see to be able to then build on it with our technology partners and our technology roadmaps to really move things forward. Now this year's theme, because what we do is every year we try to look at the energy system under a specific lens, a specific angle, and try to highlight trends or ideas that can then be taken on by decision makers and help them see the different levers and pathways they can take to meet their multiple policy objectives. So last year we were looking specifically at the electricity sector and really understanding what the increased role of electricity in the future as an energy carrier can bring in terms of opportunities to turn to a sustainable energy future. This year, in light of the multiple work streams happening to prepare for the COP negotiations in Paris, we've been asked to, as the IEA, try to provide input at what the role the energy sector needs to play to enable a successful meeting in December of this year. And so we've had multiple different work streams and I'm going to show on one of them, but I'm going to introduce it with one of the main work streams that we're also looking at, which has been led by our colleagues in the World Energy Outlook. So what we've done is we've actually looked at all the pledges that are currently being poured forward in preparation for the COP and trying to understand where negotiations are standing. So when we look at where the world has been going in terms of CO2 emissions over the past few years, we do see trends that aren't sustainable and I think that's been recognized by most of the nations, which is why there is so much action happening in the lead to Paris. And some of that action is to try to get people to sit down and agree on what can be done and to work together. And we think up till now this is really having progress because even though when we look at what the proposed actions that are being discussed may not tend us to where we need to go in terms of curbing down emissions, we do see a change in patterns in terms of where emissions may go if we were to only do what people have already agreed to look into. And so what we're saying is the current proposed INDCs that will be tabled at COP, although they don't get us there, they really build a strong foundation from which to build. But we need to move beyond. We need to go from where things are being pledged to where they would need to be to allow a long-term sustainable economic growth. So what we have been asked to do within the Technology Policy Division is to try to look at what are the means, what are the levers that decision-makers can use to be able to move from where things are standing today to where they need to go in the future. And the way we do this is through long-term scenario projections. Now so what I'm going to be talking about today isn't a path of what must happen or what will happen. It's a path of what could happen, understanding how energy system works, how basically technologies can play. And what we've decided to focus on this year is really about innovation. How technology innovation can be properly supported by policies, by market frameworks to enable the potential progress we see to be met in a way that not only allows us to reduce our carbon emissions, as we highlight in our 2DS scenario, but also what mix of technologies can actually enable us to do this in a cost-effective way while also maximizing energy security benefits. And so when we look at innovation itself, we can see that within the energy system, innovation has already delivered us with quite a series of options today. If we look at what technology has already delivered, we can see that over the long-term, technologies that deal with improving the efficiency of how we use energy, or accessing renewable energy, or through nuclear power can all play a major role in moving the energy system to a sustainable pathway. We also find that there are technologies in terms of extracting lower carbon fuels that can help us move some of the heavier carbon-intensive fuels out of the energy system, but that we also realize that in the long-term, even those lower carbon-fossil fuels will have to be outpaced themselves, and so those are transition solutions. And then we see progress happening in technologies that may not be directly available today, but that we feel progressing fast enough that they can provide us longer-term solutions to be able to move to a through carbon-neutral energy system in the long run, being able to stabilize emissions. And so it's by looking at how some of the existing innovations have already delivered, understanding how decision makers can support the innovation system in various ways, we think we can provide ideas for people to move forward and increase confidence that technology can and will deliver if properly supported. And we do believe this is a critical message to send out, because when we look at how progress on technology has currently been happened, we see that we are missing for a major part of the opportunities that technology can provide. This is a snapshot that we provide to the clean energy ministerial year on year that demonstrates where technology is progressing compared as where we see it progressing according to our optimized scenarios. And for the first time this year when we did our analysis, none of the energy technologies we tracked were actually meeting the objectives that we could set it in our 2DS scenario. Now, again, this doesn't mean that we will never be able to reduce our carbon footprint. What this means is that we are missing on opportunities to allow this transition to happen in a cost effective and secure way. So what we're trying to tell policymakers is they have an opportunity ahead of them, but they are not acting on it. And so they need to speed up things. But when we look at things just from a static perspective looking at where we are compared to one of the potential goals, and we also missed part of the picture of what is actually working, which is why we also do a lot of analysis in terms of trends, in terms of how things are progressing. And when we look at it that way, then we do see some interesting and positive signs happening. For example, renewable energy, which has been really meeting our objectives over the past two years, and this year was the first year that didn't quite meet its objectives, is still progressing drastically. We see costs coming down even faster than we were expecting it in the past. And we see now bids for electricity coming in the 60 cents a kilowatt hour in certain areas of the world. And so we do see a promise for energy, renewable energy to play a big role, and we can continue seeing that happening. In terms of CCS, this year we saw one of the major milestones needed to push CCS forward in the Boundary Dam project in Canada, where for the first time a full scale coal power generation facility was retrofitted with CCS. Now with the learnings from that first large scale demonstration program, project promoters can say they could rebuild the exact same project at 30% less cost. So we are seeing some of the learnings needed in early technology development happening in the world. When we look at the transportation sector, if we look at electric vehicles, for example, we have seen 50% sales increase last year. So this is a very good progress, but it's just not the progress that we see because we're starting for such a small base. What we highlight in the 2DS is that we could cost effectively ramp that up to 80%. So we're not there, but we're not that far. And in terms of energy storage, while we don't see the rollout progress that we see looking at the multiple benefits energy storage can provide, we do see in terms of technology improvement, quite drastic cost reductions that we hope can help storage play a big role if the right policy frameworks come into place. So understanding what works, what doesn't, and what is needed to move forward is an important part of the analysis we tried to do this year. When we look at, for example, recent trends in renewable energy technologies, we see that costs have drastically come down over the past 10 years, even faster than we would have ever predicted. And this was largely due to a strong policy support to push out those technologies, allow learning by doing and being able to get industry consolidation and moving those technologies from kind of experimental first development to really mainstreaming. So we do see the progress happening, but what is needed now is to go take the focus from the actual specific technology development and looking at the market barriers. The biggest issue right now with renewable energy is the uncertainty associated with the policy support. Since these technologies are very capital intensive and low operating costs, the business case is really dependent on the cost of capital. And when you don't know what type of rewards you're going to get in the long run from investment into renewable energy, it makes your capital flow very risky and therefore very expensive. So we have to work to ways to minimize the risk associated with these investments so that the financing costs, which is really the fuel that these technologies use, can be reduced to a minimum. When we look at energy efficient technologies, we see similar type of issues where if we look at this graph, which shows the breadth of new vehicle fuel economy being rolled out, we see that on the lower part of the green curve technology can really deliver very highly efficient vehicles. But when we look at the yellow line, which is the global average, we see that the policies are not in place to move people to buy those technologies that have the highest performance. And so again, this is moving from a strictly technology push forward to one more framework to encourage people either through standards like we have here in the US and cafe or with the bait and incentives like they have in Europe to be able to entice people to want more fuel efficient vehicles, which therefore drives the industry to increase the efficiency of the offerings that they provide. But then what we also see is as we start moving these technologies forward, we have to stop thinking in a siloed approach and really start looking at systems integrations aspect. You can only move effectively to a sustainable future if you try to evolve the system as a whole. There are multiple benefits by moving technology on the supply and demand side. And there are those technologies like smart grids, which I show in this graph that allow that integration and allow people to really understand how choosing different energy sources and using energy efficiently can really become a cost effective business case. And we have to get better at understanding how to do this, but also understanding how those technologies are being rolled out so we can understand whether the policies we put forward work or not. One of the key message we get from our analysis of smart grids technology rollout is there's very little information or trustable information out there to understand what works or what doesn't in those systems integration technologies and we have to get better at understanding the picture. And in fact what we find in our analysis is one of the key difficulties in being able to demonstrate the right way to push out technology innovation is a right set of data to allow us to where we're going. So two years ago we proposed a high level indicator to understand how the energy sector was produced which we call the energy supply carbon intensity index. And what we showed is if we look at trends over the past 40 years we find that the carbon intensity of the way we supply energy has remained fairly flat. Even taken into consideration all the improvements we've had and the new cleaner sources of energy we've had, the balance of increased demand has really forced us to keep on relying on very carbon intensive energies. And this is of course trajectory is very incompatible with what we see needed in terms of carbon intensity to be able to move to a low carbon energy system. But just looking at this high level indicator doesn't really tell you what should happen. How can I actually check whether I'm doing the right thing. And so what we're advocating is a series of a lot more detailed indicators. And for example just going one level down if we just looked at the carbon intensity of the new power generation being being inputted we could already see whether what we are supporting is actually in the right direction compared to where we need to go. And so being able to identify those information points that really help policymakers and decision makers understand whether the actions that are taken are going the right place is a huge endeavor that needs to be undertaken. And it's one of the recommendations we've provided both to the negotiators but also to all energy stakeholders. Now one of the metric that we have been tracking for many years is the amount of government support for early stage innovation in RDND. This graph shows the spending by IEA member countries on energy R&D and there's a lot of information you can gather from such information. If we just look at the size of the columns what we can see is you know after quite a lull in terms of overall energy R&D spending a few decades ago we see that that spending has started to increase back up so we are starting to reinvest in energy R&D which is a good news. We're not quite to the levels that we were in the 80s but at least there's a stepping up. The other piece of information we see is if we look at the colors within those bars we see that most of that reinvestment is actually happening on cleaner technologies which is also a good news. So a lot of money now going to energy efficiency improvement to renewable energy even on the fossil fuel side going to CCS and carbon reduction technologies. But the bad news within that graph are the dots which show the share of total R&D spending going to energy and what we see is that after having been in over 10% in the early stage of R&D investments over the past decades we've been stuck at about 4% of total R&D spending going to energy and this is really contradictory to the message we're saying about the importance of the energy sector to tackle the climate change issue. So what we see here is that governments still don't see energy as an R&D priority despite the importance that energy technologies will have in terms of meeting our long-term climate goals. And so one of the main outcomes and main recommendations from our report is that you need to at least triple current energy R&D spending to be able to have a chance to meet the 2DS goals. And so that's quite an important message. But then the last hidden message within that graph is this is only the tip of the iceberg. We really don't have a good understanding of how energy R&D spending is happening because this just shows the amount of IEA government spending on R&D. We don't have detailed information on emerging economies of developing economies in terms of R&D spending and the split and we also have very little access to private spending which is the major part of where the energy R&D is going. We have a very good understanding that and a recognition that the energy sector is one of the least innovative sector in terms of reinvestments. But sadly we don't have the data, we don't have the quantitative information to be able to really come up with good recommendations and tracking of whether we're on the piece. So this again goes back to our message that we need to get better at understanding the situation if we really want to influence the way we transition our energy system. Now of course throwing money at the problem is only part of the solution and the main work that we did this year was to try to understand how you support innovation along the entire innovation spectrum because we do see quite different policy levers having different impacts at different technology level but also at different market maturity level. So for example in early stage R&D where really what you're trying to do is reduce cost gap and improve performance of specific technologies then focusing on the technology performance and really throwing the money at it and getting the right type of effort to improve the technologies is critical. But then at a certain point when you're starting to get close to competitiveness then you have to start understanding how the market will use those technologies. So you need these market pull policies to be able to get that learning by doing, being able to improve economies of scale and really start to get into more market measures. And then as the market evolves then you have to start understanding what are the financial issues, how you actually get large-scale investments into these technologies to be able to go to the next step. And then finally when you're actually reaching that market saturation or really becoming a mainstream player then you have to move your views from a specific technology view to an entire energy systems view and understanding how you need to evolve the entire energy system included regulatory frameworks and market structures to be able to have these technologies play their role in the most effective way in a completely redefined energy system. So this year we've tried to pick examples of how this works looking at specific technologies and for example focusing on one of the early technologies which we picked to be CCS this year understanding what the promise of CCS could be if technology were to break through which we find is really important if we want to get the support for the early stage development. When you look at technology and whether technology can play a role you can't access, you can't assess this technology based on today's cost or today's performance. You have to get an understanding of how those costs could evolve but also how the markets and the policies around these technologies could evolve to see whether in the future energy system they can play their role. So for example this slide shows that under our 2DS assumptions by 2030 coal with CCS would actually make more sense than on abated coal assuming a CO2 price that would enable it to meet its game and what we actually evaluate is I think in the U.S. if we look at carbon price in the order of 45 to 50 dollars a ton then we would start to get the break even between unabated and abated coal but then when you look at other markets where you see a huge difference in prices between certain commodities we find that in Asia at reasonable carbon prices you could actually get coal with CCS via cheaper electricity sources than unabated natural gas. This becomes very important for those technologies that for those sorry countries that have large domestic resources but also can expect a lot of fluctuation in terms of their import markets to be able to understand what these technologies can do in provided secure and affordable electricity. But the key thing we have to understand is this only happens if we start supporting the technologies now to get the cost reductions that we foresee can happen by looking at different technology trends and speaking with different experts. So the message here is kind of a chicken and egg thing in order to get the support to start the cost reductions you need to look at the longer-term possibilities but the longer-term possibilities are only going to happen if you support it early so really it's a decision-making process you have to try to understand what is feasible and really assess where you can put the investments and the support to get the the results you want and being able to track this and evaluate progress on a regular basis is key to efficient innovation support. At the other end of the spectrum when we look at these technologies that we see today are starting to be cost competitive we look at the role for example of solar and PV in terms of providing clean energy and what we see is the trends that are going up really foresee solar and PV becoming main players you know within the next few years but when you look at what happens you know at the later stage of the innovation system that's where you start realizing that just looking at subsidies to push these technologies out is really insufficient for these technologies to become a mainstream solution you have to take your view away from the single technology support to a whole systems approach and you have to start looking at other technologies that can help improve the business case for these low carbon technologies technologies like energy storage technologies like smart grids like flexible thermal power generation all these technologies that allow the system to be able to cope with increased rate of variable energy sources but also how you develop these specific technologies to reduce their variability so looking at solar panels that may have a lower peak efficiency but a broader curve depending on solar incidents looking at wind turbines that may be smaller and be less efficient at high wind speeds but more efficient at lower speeds allowing them to be placed closer to demand centers looking at TND investments and understanding how you can improve your distribution system to be able to have your market forces take away some of that variability by spreading the load and so all these systems aspect become very important understanding what your system is today and what your system needs to be in the future for these technologies to play the key role is key to supporting the mainstreaming of these specific technologies and working with all stakeholders understanding all the players the regulators the utilities the industry is it becomes very important and in fact we find that the role of collaboration between private and public is absolutely key to make both the investment but also the future operations sustainable in a long run and so we've looked specifically at how the private and public sector can work together in trying to align objectives and find solutions that meet everybody's goals we have a chapter looking specifically at energy intensive industries where we try to understand how these private stakeholders actually prioritize their innovation needs and what we find is you know though in our analysis there's a huge amount of opportunity in terms of energy efficiency just rolling out today's currently best available technologies some of the investment priorities for these investors isn't to reduce the operational costs it goes much more to actually expand their market base gain access to new markets become larger players and so we have to find ways to have the public and the private goals align and find those solutions that really can help meet both the objectives and give the right incentives for the signals and this is extremely important when we look at early stage innovation because we do find in our analysis that within those intensive sectors there's about 30% of the cost-effective reduction options in the future that come from processes and technologies that are not commercially available today so it's important to start that dialogue early really help guide the investments for these companies so that we can get the early innovation support to allow these opportunities to happen in the future but collaboration goes much beyond than just with private and public sector within the IEA we do realize that most of the opportunity in the future lies in countries where that are not IEA member countries in fact we find that about 70% of the reductions in our scenarios come from non-OECD countries so it's important to be able to work with these countries collaboratively to allow them to leapfrog some of the decision makings that we've done in the developed world and allow them to move to a sustainable future from the get go but to do that we have to realize that there is not one solution that fits all situations so while we usually report our findings at the global world scale when we look at how the energy sector looks today we find that there's a wide range of solutions that work in different environments for specific local environmental conditions and what we see is that in the future this will still be the case so understanding things like resource endowment market structures growth opportunities really is important to understand which technology will have the most impact where it will be rolled out so that's where the collaboration between the developed and the developing world becomes very critical because just sharing lessons learned is not useful if you don't understand the environment in which these lessons will have learned and how much they can apply to different environments and working with the emerging and developing countries in helping them build a local innovation culture is critical so that they can do their own assessment of what will work best for them they can make sure they have the right type of capacities to be able to deploy operate and maintain the technologies but also allow them to move from strictly adopting technologies to adapting these technologies to their own situations and finally developing their own technologies that allow them to really meet their specific circumstances a perfect example is the biofuels development that have happened in Brazil that were really specific to that region but then were so well supported in the end the developed world started adopting some of the technologies being developed in those emerging economies we see that happening more and more often in fact when we look at the amount of patents being put out by the different emerging economies we do realize that that capacity to identify those key areas that have the biggest support is increasing and so it's important again from a developing from a developed world to understand where that is happening to understand where the support will have the most important goal and as Guy mentioned a bit earlier on one of the key aspects and you can see this in here is how China is really ramping up its access from innovation and this stems from the fact that China is really understood very well the amount of challenges that they have in changing their economic growth pattern for what has been for the past 20 years to one that relies a lot more to added value you know China is going is trying to grow its economies moving from a built in China for manufactured in China to a manufactured built and designed in China and they do see that that entails a lot of challenges but they are also building the capacity to evaluate the solutions that work very well for their own situation this shows a series of analyses that have been done by the IA but also by other institutions and by China's decision makers themselves that all see that technology can really help bend some of the climate concerns but for China also allow improvement in other aspects such as local air pollution but also the added value of the industrial basis in China and when you actually look at how serious China is in terms of supporting innovation it really becomes very clear this graph shows on the right hand side the amount of R&D investments that China has been doing over the past few years and we see a huge exponential growth which is to be expected when you look at the overall economic growth of China but what is astounding is the left hand part where you actually see the share of total GDP being allocated to R&D where for the first time last year China outranged the European Commission in terms of that share and if these trends continue then within the next few years we could see China as truly the innovation leader worldwide and they are bracing themselves because they do see that innovation is the role that can help them meet the nexus of their economic growth energy security and climate objectives and so within our analysis we've really worked with them to try to understand what works well within the systems and where they have challenges to allow everybody to understand the role they can play as China is also being poised to become a true energy technology ambassador in South-South types of corporations and really demonstrating that even in emerging and growing economies you can basically match economic growth and low carbon future so in a nutshell what we've been trying to do with today's with this year's edition is really get a bit of a better understanding of what are the different levers that exist in terms of energy technology innovation how you can actually support that innovation most importantly guide it to where you can actually have the results that you're hoping for but the main conclusion is that why we like to show innovation as a fairly simple linear process in reality it is a much more complex situation it has multiple feedback loops there are progress in certain sectors that influence other sectors and so it's important when we think about supporting energy technology innovation to really keep a nimble attitude towards it we have to have our support schemes to be flexible, adaptive first to react to unforeseen technology developments because if there is one thing we know about innovation is that it's almost impossible to predict so we need to be able to react to unforeseen changes whether they be negative or positive to build on those but we still need to have a somewhat foreseeable goal so that the risk associated with changing priorities doesn't preclude the right investments into it so it's finding ways to structure that support in a way that the goals are clear, are stable and can be understood by all players while having rules that allow you to first of all change as technology evolves and also react to new changes but in a way that is understood and predictable so that the business case can be made with a fully grasped understanding of the rules of engagement and the risks associated with them so I've been trying to be brief because I hope we can have a very interesting discussion now rather than put 350 pages of analysis on the table and all doze you off hopefully if there's any of these aspects that are more interesting or you have questions on I'm very happy to do so but I welcome you to go to our website take a look at the information and also to ask any questions today or in the future we'll be very happy to provide answers thank you very much sending to both the IEA member countries and to increasingly important non-member economies as listed in the report one question or clarification on the R&D chart that was very impressive how China has really soared really is that total R&D or just energy total R&D yeah just total R&D and it echoes the earlier comment I have is the actual disaggregation of how that R&D is being spent in countries especially like China where just splitting public versus private investment is extremely complex and then being able to identify exactly where it goes that's where we're really trying to work with these emerging economies to have a better understanding of how they prioritize their investments with the COP meeting coming up in Paris in December I think one thing is the targets that countries have been announcing in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions and another one is broader point you just made and that is data is often very either unavailable or murky as far as it's how it's defined in terms of especially R&D as you pointed out for emerging economies and then keeping track of the pledges and how countries are doing and I know the IEA has a role already in doing that on an informal basis you think there's any chance that the ministers or negotiators might ask the IEA to play a more formal role in doing that after the COP meeting I'm not sure I'm not going to presume of any of the COP 21 outcomes but it is definitely a message that we've been putting out to more than one forum so within our own international collaboration frameworks we do have bilateral agreements with China, India, Mexico, Brazil many of the emerging economies and with that we are working to get better access to information and that is part of our own mandate but we are also working through other forums so for example we I presented the tracking progress report that we present to the Clean Energy Ministerial every year one of the discussions we've had with the Clean Energy Ministerial is on metrics and trying to understand what ministers what the energy sector can do to demonstrate how it is progressing to a sustainable future and then if you look at the recommendations that's embalmed from the WIO climate report as well as our own ETP report is for the UNFCCC to try to identify how to bring that into the negotiating streams whether officially under UNFCCC or by mandating another organization to report to the UNFCCC so there's many ways you can do this but it is a very important aspect of what we are proposing and the recommendation of tripling R, D and D I think is obviously extremely ambitious but I think warranted and I mean I hate to date myself but I did a paper in graduate school looking at in this case U.S. energy R and D back in the 70s and A it was overwhelmingly oriented at that time toward nuclear which was understanding and understandable but it was also clear that in our country our D and D spending by government was very much linked to the price of energy in general but oil in particular and gasoline so when Congress is asked to vote on budgets as your chart show back I think was 1980 was a very high percentage of our spending on energy 10% I think now here we are in another low relatively low oil price environment I guess that makes the challenge even more difficult so in terms of the impact of low energy prices I think they have negative and positive impacts it really depends on which area we are looking at so for example we do see a lot of realization that energy prices are uncertain and that uncertainty has a price which helps people realize that moving to more domestically controlled energy sources has an advantage we also see quite a bit of the low carbon prices supporting an investment into for example flexible thermal power generation that supports a higher share of integration of variable renewables there are areas where the price signals are totally contradictory when you're looking at energy efficiency investments or when you're looking at like say biofuels in the transport sector this really has a direct negative impact but one of the things that is also starting to get recognized is that this low energy price environment is also an opportunity for those countries that subsidized energy quite drastically and we are seeing some of the countries taking the extra flexibility in their own domestic budgets provided by lower energy prices to reinvest in cleaner technologies in reducing the total amount of subsidies or in certain cases even increasing taxes on energy but providing the means for those moves to be cost-neutral to consumers by allowing them to invest in more energy efficient or lower cost energy so there is that opportunity the real risk really lies in the time horizon it's easy to make a quick popular decision today based on the low energy price today without having to think about the impacts in 10 years from now when energy prices start going up again so being able to take that internalization of the long-term impacts into a shorter-term decision-making is always the political difficulty in the energy sector that really has a quite different transition time frame than standard political cycles well thank thank you for that you know Francois we're going to open up the floor to for your questions and take the privilege of the chair to recognize a distinguished guest we have with us today Don Paul Don is research he's affiliated with CSIS Energy as a senior associate and he spends most of his time in Southern California at the University of Southern California working on energy technology after a long and distinguished career at Chevron as its chief technology officer so Don I would give you the opportunity to make a comment or ask a question for an interesting presentation I think you got to one of the questions that we're seeing when we deal with a broad array I deal with a broad array of people in utilities and well and gas companies and that is particularly perhaps more focused in the U.S. but the effects of it because the size of the U.S. is if we really are having going to have $4 gas for 20 years that's going to alter the infrastructure and one of the things we're seeing right now is is a flow of interest in devices to use that natural gas good news about that is that it allows you for example and energy to create a different for epitom power a different power thing and actually absorb more renewables because of that but it may lock you into a new capital structure that will be dependent on natural gas for 30 or 40 years so I think that was one question is ultimately will the flow of investment and technology follow the molecules that's that was one but then the other one is on the information side and what we see in smart grid which is and everybody's plunging away I like your plot but the dark side of smart grid is now emerging and that is that the more data sources the more you're dependent the digital dependency of the grid as that rises the security risks rise like the square of that and we're seeing the security risk rise much faster than your ability to control a system and I would argue that may be one of the one of the questions can you count on all those gains from automation if security starts to break down that because you introduced two risks so those are the two things I wanted to raise well thanks and those are two very good observations in fact I mean I think it's a natural tendency of all technology systems that as they get more complicated they also become prone to more issues than we could think on I think we've been pretty good at managing that if we look at just an engine complexity today compared to what it was 25 years ago I think we've been pretty good at it but the energy security aspect and also the all the data access type of questions are becoming very important smart grids in fact we had a workshop about three months ago looking at that specific aspect where you know it's interesting to have an energy workshop with IBM and Ericsson and all the people that you're not used to have and those and see how they see things so it is being recognized it is being you know trying to be tackled I think in that respect the energy sector will probably become more of an adopter of what happens in other digital systems than in itself but it is a threat that needs to be recognized and you know one of the things that we do within the IEA is we have an energy security task force that looks at being able to have contingency plans for all new types of threats first we started looking for example at adaptation aspects so that you know energy influences the climate but climate influences energy so that's one of the new type of fields that we're looking at but digital security and the impact of the you know cyber terrorist attacks on the security of energy systems is also one that is being looked at but it's a field that's definitely going to evolve in terms of locking in infrastructure that's where I guess my key message would be think about it don't invest on you know what the opportunity is today but try to have a long-term vision where the system looks into one of the key things that we found interesting and we looked at that quite drastically last year is when you look at natural gas infrastructure investments there's actually two potential pathways one is in flexible power generation to support higher share of variable renewables the other one is on base load support as a lower carbon fuel the risk with that second one is that only holds for about 10 years by 2025 or 30 we're actually getting into the best available natural gas technologies having a higher carbon footprint than the global average needed to meet the 2DS so then if you are considering natural gas as a base load then you have to start thinking about natural gas with CCS which in fact turns out to be a pretty cost-effective solution in itself and so it's not just a question of are we locking in it's are we putting investments with ways to actually continue the value of these investments in the long term we're advocating a lot of you know what we would call fitted but not fitted for but not with new power plants considering the feasibility of a CCS retrofit that holds true for coal investment in for example Southeast Asia but it also holds true for natural gas investments investments in North America thank you John I'll take question from our audience please identify yourself in your affiliation Ariel we'll start with you and then the lady across this I'll from you Ariel Cohen the Atlantic Council excellent presentation enjoy it as much as Fatih just to follow up on the previous question how much by how much the investment in smart grid in storage in cyber security all these things that we need because as our civilization is becoming more complex our energy system is becoming more complex what you're describing is much more complex than the 19th century coal and wood based power by how much that makes it more expensive and to where does it start to affect the energy poverty issues the lower end of the development countries issues how you square that part thank you thank you oh do you want to take the two of them let's save them a little trouble give the mic okay Lisa Friedman from Climate Wire thanks for doing this today I just want to bring this back to the context of COP 21 you talked in the beginning about how the the pledges that we're seeing so far and the expected pledges aren't going to get us there but they're a good foundation can you talk about what what an agreement in Paris needs to include for you to consider it a success if we're starting with the understanding that this isn't going to get us to two degrees initially what what does this need to have to get us to some of the innovations you're talking about here and for you know for this to be a successful agreement in your view okay thanks for these two questions very good questions first one also a very tough question I must admit I can't really tell you how much of the extra investment is specifically to the systems integrations aspect we haven't I guess we could probably try to split it out but we haven't up till now but what I can tell you and I think I I think even show you is that when you look at the total difference in investment costs between a 60s and a 2ds version then one of our main message is this is not a cost question it's actually a investment question this graph shows at the top bar the total additional investment to go from 60s to 2ds which we estimate at about 40 trillion us dollars for the next 40 years the second bar just shows the fuel savings associated with that investment and we're here talking about 115 trillion dollars over the next 40 years so when you look at the difference between the two even discounted at 10% it is still a net benefit equation so we're not talking about a burden we're actually talking about a cost saving opportunity but as I said earlier the real challenge is how do you mobilize that 40 trillion dollars when people don't even know whether they're ever going to get their money back on it is the policy uncertainty on the value of that investment that is really stifling the move to a low carbon system and we've demonstrated that in many many different areas we've published studies for example looking at a transportation sector and how moving to a more sustainable transport system improves access to services reduces the capital and operational maintenance costs of your transportation system and lowers both local pollution carbon emissions and even congestion so just looking at capital and fuel saving capital O&M and fuel saving you can find huge savings and you're not even considering the health effect the productivity increases by less traffic and so forth so we are fully convinced that this is a cost effective solution to go forward so really the thing is how do you actually make the business case solid enough to mobilize because again the question isn't that there's not enough money to invest the issue is when you're looking at the risk about mobilizing that there are many other opportunities within the economic system that are more known to investors with lower risks and so it's making the business case for these new types of investments that is needed on the agreement side I think I would say there's there's actually a few things that we would see as necessary to be recognized in Paris first of all hopefully people will realize that this is the beginning of the negotiations not the end we strongly hope that there will be a huge statement stating that emissions need to peak within the next decade and that's something that in fact if you look at our wheel climate report we actually provided a bridge scenario that provided five different solutions that could be implemented at zero GDP impact in the next few years to really allow that window for peaking to happen before you actually go into further investments I think the other important part and again this is a message both from our climate report and from this report is you have to track progress so you have to really define the right way to evaluate whether you're doing on this and so the INDCs they're not really defined in terms of how you would evaluate but what you need is to be able to find ways to put them all together add them up so that you can see what you're shooting for and then you need to have the right metrics to be able to evaluate on a regular basis whether you're making progress or not and then most importantly I think in my mind is you have to be able to review and to increase ambitions it is our strong feeling that you know the the outcome of the December will not be something that is incredibly ambitious in terms of targets but we believe there will be enough elements on the table for people to realize wow we could do a lot more and there's a lot of things happening that can help us to do a lot more how do we roll out these other endeavors and these other means into the agreement so that on a regular basis we can reevaluate and say okay I guess what we thought we could do this we realized we could do better let's have more ambitious targets and keep bringing that down so that we can in the long term have a long-standing energy system while you're bringing the mic yeah I listened to the woman who's going to cheer the cop meeting the French government official and she made a real strong case that for her the most important goal was to have this public and private sector buy in at the December meeting and that was the basically the investment case you made in answer to Ariel's question so I hope she's I hope she gets what she's asking Hi thanks so much Spencer Schecht with American University and Citizens Climate Lobby um great presentation you discussed that there's some assumption that there will be a price on carbon is that wishful thinking or is there actually a legitimate conversation about putting an international price on carbon so I think with that question there's actually two questions the first question is it wishful thinking to think of a carbon price and then is it wishful thinking to think of an internationally agreed carbon price and those are two completely different things uh I don't think it's wishful thinking to that that people will soon realize that we have to find a way to price externalities how exactly we will do that whether it will be to you know on the transparent carbon tax whether it will be through you know carbon trading whether it actually just rolling carbon externalities into legislation to make it happen I can't say we use it within our own analytical framework as a kind of overall arching carbon price just because it makes it simpler it actually doable to do this type of exercise it is an artifice in a certain way what it allows us to do though is to show kind of the cost benefit analysis of these these aspects so as long as we have I mean because I think I'll go back to what I said originally I don't think any time soon we'll have an internationally agreed to carbon price that allows externalities to be traded worldwide but I think that each government will start to realize the impact of their own work and they'll be able to find ways domestically to have the means to make that carbon trading happen the other aspect that needs to be realized is when we do our own scenarios we're not trying to tell the world what it needs to do we're trying to tell the world what can happen you know a very good example I showed that graph showing the IIA 2DS version of China's trajectory and we look at you know the ERI or others evaluation of their own trajectory now our trajectory is based on this assumption that there will be a globally agreed you know a treaty that will say well whatever I save here is wish you know is useful here and so it's kind of a copper plate type of agreement so that's why it's not as important to look at our numbers and say oh you know 30 percent of CCS or whatnot no what is important is to understand what technology can provide and then everybody domestically need to do their own work and we're doing more and more of that specific country or region regional analysis and supporting others who are doing it to try to see how our global optimization exercise reflects domestic potential decisions so we definitely think that the regional split will probably be different than what we foresee but we like to work with with everybody to try to see how they can make it you know cost-effective in their own way Thank you Doug Hengel the German Marshall Fund so I'm Doug Hengel from the German Marshall Fund two two two questions Bill Gates said words to the effect recently that we can't get there from here where we need to go on renewables current renewables at the cost would be astronomical so I'm wondering what you think about that and the second is if I understood your presentation correctly in terms of the transport sector you see a important role for fuel economy but I didn't see much of a role for fuels new fuels advanced biofuels that kind of thing so I'm just wondering where you think the technology stands on that great so I'm glad to see that I agree with Bill Gates if you look at our overall 2DS scenario in 2050 if you look at primary energy 60% of energy still comes from fossil fuels within our own optimized scenario if you look at the electricity sector that becomes quite different because we're seeing the electricity sector moving from what is about today two-third fossil about 20% renewables and the rest nuclear moving and switching the role of renewables and fossil so in 2050 we see about two-thirds renewables and 20% fossil so that is a drastic change but overall in primary energy there's still a lot of fossil fuels we have run scenarios where we've looked at high renewable penetration and so forth and we found that you could still cost effectively do it with a lot more renewables but then the cost benefits would be just less than if you actually were still considering a lot of fossil fuels but with mitigation measures like CCS so I mean I do agree within our scenarios we haven't found a cost-effective way of moving to 100% renewables and a lot of the difference I guess in what we do is we try to really look at ripple effects between the energy sector and that's why sometimes people would like to move towards forwards but they don't see that there's an infrastructure in place today and then when you transition it you know there's more cost-effective ways to do things and the purpose is not to constrain yourself on one solution but really to look at the goal and then how you actually manage these multiple goals so that's definitely part of the analysis we do on the transportation side yes fuel economy is a huge component but it's not the entire component when we do our transport analysis we we use what we have what we call then an avoid shift assie type of sort of avoid shift and improve type of methodology where we try to look at transport services and see if we can avoid like non-useful transport either by reallocating urban layouts or looking at logistics improved logistics to reduce freight transport and so forth then shifting transportation to more effective modes and then the in the improved side there's two aspects to the improved one is improved energy efficiency and then the second one is lower carbon fuels and in that we do consider electricity biofuels even natural gas transitions in there as well as hydrogen and we've actually just published last at the beginning of the month a hydrogen roadmap looking at what that fuel vector could play in the future so really overall when we do our analysis in the energy system we have a little bit over 500 different technologies and energy vectors that we analyze and try to optimize into the scenario so we really try to put into the biofuels question is one that is extremely tough because that is one that gets first of all directly impacted by the low fuel the low fossil fuel prices today it's also one that along with CCS suffers from a lot of uncertainty in terms of the political support associated with it and so while we do see a cost effective business case to moving some of these technologies around we just don't see the political support to actually make those early investments to make it happen but in the long run when you're looking at heavy intensive modes like marine rail and shipping and air transport specifically you know the other options aside from biofuels to decarbonize the transport sector are very very minimum and so we definitely see it playing a role in the long run Lee Hendricks in the back Hi, Lee Hendricks with Golden Global Strategies I just want to go back a little bit for a minute to what you were talking about with the business case and whether or not you have an opinion on the announcement that was made last month I guess in late May by some of the European oil majors on climate change and kind of whether that indicates that they're already seeing a shift in the business case towards the need for the or whether they're actually asking for more signals and whether you expect that trend to continue I'm not sure if I would say that this is a shift in trends I mean I've been working with the oil and gas sector for many decades and everybody's always recognized that whatever happens on the climate scene will have a huge impact on the business in fact if you listen to our chief economist statement that he made earlier this week he basically told all energy investors if you think you're immune from the climate debate then you're going to lose your business and we definitely think and this is you know not just us coming at it from our own point of view we have an energy business council that we consult with regularly we have multiple industry advisory boards that work with us on many of our analysis so we definitely recognize that the energy industry and that's all energies renewables or fossil realize the impact that the climate will have and both you know how energy impacts the climate and how climate impacts energy these are discussions we have all the time our energy ministerial meeting happens once every two years and the CEOs for most energy major companies are invited to attend last year we had a statement on the importance of the energy sector on climate we expect something like this to happen again this year so the entire energy sector realizes its role in providing solutions for climate change but at the same time realizes the impact that climate has on its ability to continue sustainable business and this is a message that policymakers need to understand it's not a with it with or without us it's it's everybody happens we're actually working very closely also with a world business council for sustainable development trying to get some of these companies to come up with specific statements and pledges within the COP negotiations December to demonstrates that there are business opportunities associated with a low carbon energy transition thank you I'm David Givens of Argus Media you mentioned a Canadian project I wanted you to clarify that I heard you correctly you called it Valier the one I'm aware of is the sask power one in particular and maybe I just didn't hear you right no it is the sask power project it's called boundary down is the is the location where this is happening and that's the one I was referring to in terms of the the great strides that that were held with that project well I'll try to decide we haven't had a question down here as you as many of you know John Francois is a native Canadian so you're really familiar with with that project Jack Leibowitz not in the energy area retired biophysical scientists at NIH Aymarie Lovins Rocky Mountain Institute has proposed a major plan for the trans oil sectors given the let's focus on the transportation he believes that if we could reduce enormously reduce the weight of cars there'd be less energy use tremendously and then of course the batteries would get smaller and therefore you could integrate the whole process of transportation at least automobile transportation with the electricity sector and that would be a tremendous saving no I fully agree and we actually have had chats with Mr. Lovins a few times in terms of our analysis it goes back to what I was saying earlier and what we're trying to do is to have an integrated approach we're really trying to focus away from just providing energy to understand in what services are we trying to provide and then what's the most efficient cost-effective way to provide those services so this is definitely true in the transport sector and in fact you look at how personal mobility needs to evolve and how public transit needs to evolve and what you're trying to do to give access to services as many people as possible you suddenly realize that the integration of different technologies really allow you to do that much better you can do that on the building sector as well when you're looking at insulation materials district heating aspects and how what you're actually trying to provide is comfort and then from that if you really try to evaluate what you can do and it's really that systems integrations aspect last year our focus was on the electricity sector but it wasn't on the power sector it was on the role that electricity would play as an energy factor in the future and in there we definitely saw some of the interactions between we had a chapter dedicated to transport electrification we had one that dealt with storage we had one that dealt with renewables and it's when you integrate all these pieces together that you realize where the most cost effective ways are it goes back also to the business case because what we can't forget is the human in the loop and it's the question of how much people will be willing to have their car serve the utilities and how much you need to reward them for doing that and all of these so you have to work you have to evolve the technology the business model and the behavioral aspect all together at the same time that's the tricky part James saying I've been retired your figure show pointed out reminded us that the world is very inhomogeneous there are very large consumers and there are very advanced technology generating countries and there are some others and there are others so as you desegregate your figures if you just look for example at China and the United States at China United States and Western Europe and didn't worry about the other countries how far could you get to a two-degree goal with agreement it's just a trilateral agreement rather than a global agreement I'm trying to eliminate the whole problem developing world now I'll try to answer that without getting into the whole burden sharing agreement but you know when we as I said earlier on we do this specific analysis in terms of a globally optimized solution when you look at where the savings need to happen then what you need to check is what is the expected growth in services and what is the best way to deliver those services and that's where the emerging and developing world suddenly becomes a very interesting case to discuss because what you find is developing your energy system in a way that is sustainable actually is cheaper than developing in the traditional way and that's the type of message we need to do and that's why we have this whole chapter about how do you build a local innovation culture that allows you to think not on what do I need to do today and tomorrow but what do I need to do today tomorrow to get to the day after tomorrow and how can I plan for these things to happen and not just try to replicate what has been done elsewhere but really develop the right solutions for myself and so China huge potential but also China's growth is not going to be exponential in the next few years you have areas India is a perfect example where you can expect tremendous growth over the years and tremendous opportunities that's one of the reasons why last year our focus was on the Indian power sector because that's a tremendous challenge to meet that increased demand for energy in a world where you have so much of your population that doesn't have access to modern energy today in an area where providing financing services is just the most difficult process you can imagine so there are huge challenges ahead but there are also huge benefits and what we want to say is don't address them one by one address them you're going to have to get a lot of financing in just to provide energy why not do it smart from the first place and so that's where the split between emerging and emerged economies becomes important because everybody has a role to play and everybody has benefits to gain but it's the collaboration and that's what we're all about I mean for the past 40 years what we've been focusing on is how can we get different countries with different interests and different goals to work together to try to achieve as much synergy as possible in the back please thanks my name is Levi Tillerman and I guess I have a comment and a question the first is I thought that the chart that you put up that showed the percentage of spending for R&D focused towards energy was very interesting because if you look at the technologies that are really taking hold today so many of them are rooted in R&D from the 1970s and 1980s so that really points towards a long-term strategic nature of the challenge secondly I just wrote a book on the future of transportation and one of the things that I deal with is automation and I'd be interested to know if you spent any time looking at how automation broadly and specifically in the transportation sector will affect the economy and our energy use in 2050 because by the time you get to mid-century we will have a serious degree of automation in all sectors of the economy and that will definitely have implications yeah thanks and well first of all on that idea about the R&D spending and how much you know it led to you know our executive director likes to say you know we tend to think about past transitions as it was a nice break but when you look at it you know it took something like 60 years for the first oil extraction to actually you know starting to put 10% energy coming from oil and another 30 years to get it to 40 more than 40% so energy transitions take time in any cases you know people think of shale gas as wow we had a breakthrough they don't realize how much money do we put into all the technologies that you need to bring together to extract shale since you know the mid 1980s to towards the early 1990s so it's not like these things happen in the flash and that's why we keep saying you know you got to feed that pipeline you can't just focus on the stuff that's coming out of it you have to put the ideas in for them to come up to anything so it also goes back to my earlier graph about the wedges where yeah everybody's focusing on renewables and on energy efficiency great idea because it makes economic sense now but if you forget the ones that you'll need in 20 years from now then you know we will have a problem when we get there on the automation question we're looking into it we've got you know as I said we have the great privilege of working with over 6000 smart people that look at all different aspects and some of them are looking into the actual intelligent transport system question and how you can actually optimize aspects we're looking at it specifically on the on the freight logistics aspects and how to really improve efficiency of transports of goods as well as integration of electric vehicles into electricity grids I wouldn't say that our own analysis is extremely pointy and so forth you know our role is to try to look at the very detailed level of knowledge that is happening extract what it could mean on a global energy transition so we lose a lot of the very interesting details into this and then we have these discussions with some of the experts on saying well if we estimate that this would be the impact in the long term do you agree or do you not agree so sadly we do lose a lot of the very interesting aspects of it but it is part of the assumptions that go into how we see some of these the developments happening whether a trend makes sense because it's going to be supported by new ways of managing information transferring information we try to do a lot of work for example on demand response types of aspects both in the building sector and in the transportation sector to see how price signals can actually help using energy efficiently when it is the cheapest and so and so forth well the point of the long term nature is certainly well taken I think it's particularly true for getting that message across to government you know because the long term nature like you say could be 30 40 years is a difficult policy message for most political systems and I like the way you made the point that different countries in different regions you have to deal with the environments that exist I must admit may well be that countries that are less democratic may have a a longer term view the way China has shifted for example in its R&D so quickly I don't think you could get that kind of shift in most either congressional or parliamentary systems that are dealing with budgets have much shorter term view I think a company Don is very familiar with the major oil companies they tend to have that longer term view as well but even there you see how quickly capital spending shifts in a relatively short period of time given what we've seen now in the shale gas prices gas prices natural gas prices coming down and more recently liquid fuels prices so those points are very well taken are there any ma'am yes just one quick comment what you said it's I mean the two aspects that you pointed out are very important I think one of the big things that for example China has going forward is that there's also and I was talking about the risk in terms of policy aspects you know there's it's pretty well recognized and when China announces they're going to do something they're going to do it and so the risk the policy uncertainty is much less and the ability to mobilize capital to go towards a goal that you know is going to be met you know is a different challenge when we did the analysis last year about India's power sector one of the big risks with India is the very complex political structure of the regional central governments and so forth and very strong local oppositions to nationally sustainable projects so that really does play in the long run on the business side I think you're right that at least traditionally businesses had much longer term plans and could could see this but we do see also quite a lot more pressures in the past few years on short-term investment returns you know shareholders are becoming more and more wanting the return right now this is a risk in terms of the long-term sustainability of the economic system so we have to start you know realizing that businesses are not the far-sighted answers that they used to be they still do need to carry that long-term investments but they have a lot more internal pressures within themselves as well yeah good morning my name is Rosemary Sakiro I wanted to ask a question on Africa how do you look at the future of Africa with renewables like power into industrialization and transportation with the cast they are having now can you talk something about that what would be the best affordable means of renewables in Africa yes absolutely I can't sadly give too much detail on this because it's an area that we have not had a chance to focus you know within my team but the IEA has last year the world energy outlook had a specific focus on Africa we are part of the UN sustainable energy for all initiative trying to evaluate what are some of the impacts and so forth but what we do see is Africa like in many other areas needs to think about its energy future not as a replication of the current model but as a model that will fit its own requirements we have a lot of work ongoing in terms of how do you evolve an energy system from you know very very little basis to be able to grow as quickly as possible the access to clean and modern energy but in a way that you can then link the different aspects to have a fully efficient system in the long run so how you go for example for micro grids or even standalone energy systems to integrated grid systems in the long run is one of the areas that we look at in terms of transport again the focus on what services you want to provide first is important we've been working with some partners looking at the impact of different transportation modes on providing access difference between rich and poor difference between women and men different between elderly and young and really try to see what are the best combinations that provide the most access to the population that is growing a major aspect of that discussion is also the urbanization rate because that's a thing that we see a lot is a lot of the population is moving towards large urban centers and how you can actually provide that increased energy demand in a sustainable way in urban energy is a very important aspect and next year's analysis is going to be specifically on urban energy systems and how you can integrate that most cost effectively so those are all aspects that we are kind of looking into thank you very much Francois any final questions about at our ending time so if not I want to once again thank Jean Francois and his team at the IEA for very comprehensive and I think a very powerful message and we heard a powerful message from Fatih Birol just two weeks ago from the economic point of view and so thank join me in thanking Jean Francois thank you very much for the great questions as well


Good morning, everyone. Today I'm going to share the results of our experiment. This is the first season yield of Crescaven peach grafted on semi-dwarf and pest-resistant root stalks. So everyone around knows that in Alabama, peaches are the number one fruit crop commodity and also a local favorite. So a lot of customers love eating Alabama produced peaches. But the peach production does come with some challenges and here I listed the most significant of those challenges in peach production. First of all, most of them we're experiencing some freeze and frost damage late in the spring when the crop has set, especially on early ripening or even mid-season ripening cultivars. And that often causes a lot of damage and crop loss. And in recent years, we're seeing a problem that is becoming more and more significant and that is the insufficient chilling accumulation and we recently had two seasons and the second one the insufficiency was as deep as probably up to 60% for some cultivars. Another issue that we're encountering is that our peach orchards are being trained to the conventional training systems which of them are most often used are open base or open center. Those systems are not proven to be that highly efficient that some of the newly developed systems for high-density orchards. Another problem that we're experiencing it is the labor cost and labor availability and that is combined with land encroachment and lack of verging replant sites for peaches. This relates to another problem that we're experiencing and this is we're having a lot of sites with history or high incidence for malaria root rot or we're experiencing this disease peach tree short life. Both of those diseases are causing a lot of loss in peach production annually, not only in Alabama but that's what we're most concerned with our production in Alabama. Also we're having bacterial and fungal diseases. We have nematodes and insects that are causing problems. So we're looking for solutions to some of those problems or to alleviate some of the problems that we're having with our challenges. You probably are aware that Alabama is part of a bigger multi-state national study looking at different rootstocks for different tree fruits and in 2017 we have initiated a peach semi dwarf rootstock study. There are 10 states involved in that study and also we have international collaborators but this study is looking at seven different rootstock cultivars that are that are semi dwarf and have the ability to control the size of the orchard or the peach tree. This experiment is planted at the Children Research and Extension Center in Clinton and the planting distance we selected for the study is 6 by 18 feet. This provides a density of our orchard up to 405 trees per acre that's not considered very high but rather this is a moderate high density. This experiment is trained to a perpendicular v-training system and you can see on this picture how our trees are looking in this January of 2020. So I wanted to highlight the rootstocks that are included in this experiment and we have three of the rootstocks of Controller Series. They came from Davis, California and those are Controller 6, Controller 7 and Controller 8. All of them are considered to be semi dwarf rootstocks and all of them are hybrids between Harrow Blood and Okinawa Peach so they are 100% peach rootstocks. What is more important at least to me is their resistance to root rot nematode. All three rootstocks have this resistance. The other two rootstocks that we're looking to evaluate in our conditions in Alabama, those are coming from Agrumelora Iberica from Spain, those are Root Pack 20 also known as Dense Pack and Root Pack 40 also known as Nanopack. Both of those rootstocks are inter-specific hybrids. The first one is a hybrid between plum and almond and the second is peach by almond. The third rootstock that we're going to look at it is MP29. It is a clonal plum peach inter-specific hybrid that was developed by Dr. Beckman from USDA in Byron, Georgia. This rootstock was released in 2012. It is pretty new on the market and it is pretty interesting one because it is shown to be resistant to peach tree short life, armillaria root rot and root rot nematodes. So our controls in this experiment are well known guardian and lower rootstocks. Our cyan cultivar is a virus indexed crest haven. We started collecting data for this experiment in 2017 immediately after we planted the experiment and we continued throughout the seasons but for the first time we collected data on the yield in 2019 because we needed to keep the trees without the fruit on them. We needed to defruit them in the first two seasons to make sure they establish their root system well. So on this chart you can see our data for the three seasons that reflect our trunk cross sectional area and for us it is important a measure because it shows us the vigor of each particular tree or each particular rootstock and as you can notice we have data for 2017 listed here in the blue bar. Data for 2018 are listed in the yellow bars and the red bars represent our data for 2019. It is not a surprise to see that guardian and lower rootstock produced the largest trunk cross sectional area throughout the years but what is the pleasant surprise here we can see that all of the experimental rootstocks were growing at a slower pace like they were weaker growing that lower and guardian so that really proves to us that in our environment they're also having this semi dwarf quality so our MP29 rootstock was the weakest growing rootstock among all of those that we tested and of course much smaller than our controls guardian and lower. In 2019 as I mentioned we harvested the fruit for the first time we started the harvest season on July 12th and we had four different harvests that span over a 10 day period and the last harvest was conducted on July 23rd so we harvested every second or third day and here is the data that presents the total yield per tree that we were getting in 2019 and on the picture you can see some of the crop of our experimental trees so again it is not surprised that the trees that were grafted on guardian and lower produced the higher yield but what is a pleasant surprise to me was to see that actually trees that were grafted on MP29 were not statistically different than the trees that were grafted on lower so this this is a pretty good sign because lower obviously produced pretty high yield per tree even though it is the weakest growing rootstock in this experiment from this graph we can also see that controller 678 and also root pack produced very low very low yield in 2018 but when we look and determine yield efficiency which is how we come up with that we divide the total yield in kilograms by the trunk cross sectional area for each tree and that's how we determine how much fruit per area is being produced so our yield efficiency is obviously the highest for the trees that were grafted on MP29 rootstock only lower yield efficiency was closer to that of the efficiency of MP29 the trees that were grafted on root pack 40 definitely had a very low yield efficiency as I mentioned during 2019 we had conducted four harvests and we collected data and separated the data on each of those harvests and then we totaled the data on mean fruit size and that's how we determined the mean fruit size for the season obviously from our records it is shown that controller 6 had the largest mean fruit size in 2018 on the bottom of this table you can see that the trees that were grafted on root pack 20 had the smallest fruit size on average and that was an average of 203 grams only what else we are able to notice here we can see that controller 8 and root pack 40 had larger fruit size than the trees that were grafted on lower and also controller 7 and MP29 had larger fruit size than the trees that were grafted on guardian and this is kind of in some cases you can say against any logic because guardian trees are very vigorous and usually this is related to the larger fruit size produced on those trees but you can see the data almost all of our tested rootstocks produced mean fruit size larger than guardian another observation that we made in 2018 relates to the number of cracked fruit that we found per tree so we counted and recorded the cracked fruit on each of the four harvests and we came with the total number for the season you can see from this chart that root pack 20 had close to seven cracked fruit per tree on average MP29 had about five cracked fruit per tree on average and those numbers were considered high when we compared to our trees that were grafted on guardian and lower which had between one and two cracked fruit only we have another good news here we observed that the trees that were grafted on controller 8 had about one and a half cracked fruit per tree on average which shows the ability of this cultivar to produce to prevent this cracking of the fruit in general this is a pretty young study and we are continuing to evaluate all the responses of those trees that are grafted on different size controlling rootstocks but in general up until now we can see that trees that were grafted on MP29 were the least vigorous trees in our experiment also trees on MP29 had the highest yield efficiency and that is one of the wonderful qualities of this this particular rootstock also trees on controller 6 controller 8 and root pack 40 they had larger fruit size than the trees that were grafted on our controls guardian and lower root pack for 20 and MP29 had the highest number of cracked fruit while trees on controller 8 had relatively low number of cracked fruit and it was similar to guardian trees on root pack 40 MP29 produced the greatest had the greatest effect on advancing fruit maturity when we compared the number of fruit that we harvested on each of those four harvests that I mentioned throughout the season we noticed that over 90 percent of the fruit for guardian and over 75 percent of the fruit of Lowell were harvested in the second part of the harvest season while about 70 percent of the fruit of root pack 40 and MP29 they were produced in the first half of the season or within the first two harvest dates so for now we are thinking that probably those two rootstocks root pack 40 and MP29 could be used as a tool by the grower as a tool to time the ripening or to target certain markets also with this study we're intending to evaluate the labor cost and eventually any savings that could be provided by the perpendicular V and by the rootstocks the semi dwarf rootstocks we just collected data on the pruning weights and timing for pruning that is needed for the trees that are grafted on different rootstocks and we will continue to measure the timing that is needed to to hand tin those trees later in the season and also eventually we're going to time the harvest time for each of those trees and we we're going to measure what type of economical benefits the new rootstocks and the training system can provide to our peach growers with that I'd like to thank for your attention


Welcome to a UBC Open Badges video about setting the required steps for issuing a badge for logging into the website. In this video, we will cover how to use a CWL login as a requirement for your badge. To use this as a required step, you will need to have created a login link on your page. You can learn how to do this in our WordPress Setup Toolkit. We'll start at our WordPress dashboard where we'll click on Badge OS. Next, select Edit for the badge that will be issued for logging in. And scroll down to the Required Steps section. Click on Add New Step. And then from the drop-down menu, select UBC Login to Website. In the box next to this menu, we can specify the number of times a student must log in to earn the badge. Once we've finished with our required steps, click on Save All Steps. If we change our minds, we can always delete this step. Or to add further steps to badge earning, click on Add New Step and repeat the process. We'll return to the top to click Update to apply the changes to our badge. We can click on View Post to see how it looks. Thank you for watching this UBC Open Badges video. For more toolkits and video guides, go to our website at badges.open.ubc.ca.