Launch of the Energy Transition Outlook 2026 — 7 October 2026 - 10:00 CEST

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: The End [00:00:30] Speaker 2: Since we last stood here, the world has changed a lot, and so have we. [00:00:48] Speaker 3: In 2019, we told you about D&V's energy transition outlook. While we were blissfully unaware of something called COVID-19. [00:00:57] Speaker 2: And you almost certainly hadn't heard of ChatGPT. [00:01:00] Speaker 3: And many of the things that kept the world stable for my parents have now been turned on their heads. [00:01:09] Speaker 2: Now, the energy transition isn't just about protecting the planet. [00:01:14] Speaker 3: It's about whether or not we have a secure way to keep the lights on. [00:01:19] Speaker 4: I don't think we should put energy security over, like, protecting the climate, because that's a lot more important in the future. Welcome to the energy transition game show. Last time, Oscar said this. When I'm as old as my mom and dad, nearly half our energy will be from renewables, like wind power. [00:01:40] Speaker 5: But that was in a different world. Before COVID, before AI took off, and before the energy supply started to feel less secure. [00:01:47] Speaker 4: And the question is, since we were last here, has the energy transition sped up or slowed down? I think it has slowed down. [00:01:54] Speaker 5: Faster, slower. [00:01:55] Speaker ?: Faster, slower. [00:01:55] Speaker 5: Faster, slower. Faster, slower. [00:01:57] Speaker 6: I think it has slowed down. [00:01:59] Speaker 5: Faster, slower. [00:02:00] Speaker 3: Um, yeah, I think it's slowed down. Faster, slower. [00:02:02] Speaker ?: Faster, slower. [00:02:02] Speaker 5: Faster, slower. Faster, slower. [00:02:04] Speaker ?: Faster, slower. [00:02:04] Speaker 5: Faster, slower. And the answer is... About the same, actually. [00:02:20] Speaker 7: Although, some things are growing faster, like all the solar panels and electric cars we see everywhere now. And what about AI? [00:02:30] Speaker 1: According to this chatbot, although AI needs lots of electricity, it does not change DNV's long-term forecast. And if you'd like to know more, upgrade your subscription today. Ugh. [00:02:45] Speaker 6: Energy emission is peaking roundabout now. But all those promises made in Paris about climate change will not be met. [00:02:55] Speaker 2: It's quite evident already in the weather. We have hotter summers, bigger storms, and things are much more unpredictable now. [00:03:04] Speaker 3: But I do think that the larger nations do really need to kind of take some larger steps when it comes to climate change and green energy and stuff. Hello, everyone. [00:03:23] Yvonne Chan: Welcome to the launch of DNV's Energy Transition Outlook. What you've just seen is more than just a glimpse of how young people view the world. It is a powerful reminder of whom the energy transition is ultimately for. The decisions that are being debated in boardrooms, on policy platforms, and in gatherings such as this, will reshape the energy systems they inherit, and also determine if these systems will be reliable, secure, and sustainable. My name is Yvonne Chan, and it's my privilege to moderate today's proceedings. We are joined by 250 leaders and executives here in Singapore, with thousands more watching online. If you are tuning in via the LinkedIn live stream, you can submit your questions into the chat, and members of the DNV team will be on hand to receive them. Now, over the next hour, we will move beyond ambition and examine some of the difficult choices that are already redefining the next phase of the energy transition. Our first panel today will explore how the pursuit of energy security is reshaping the direction and pace of the energy transition. We then turn to electrification and energy resilience and confront a central question: How should nuclear power and renewables contribute to meeting today's energy challenges? Now, before we dive into those topics, I'll be inviting Ditlev Enghel, the CEO of DNV Energy Systems, to take us through the main findings of the 2026 Energy Transition Outlook. And Singapore is such a fitting place for these conversations. Singapore represents a glimpse of a future that many countries are striving to achieve. We have growing prosperity while strengthening our energy security and accelerating the shift to cleaner energy. More broadly, Southeast Asia represents one of the world's most important energy transition regions. This connection between global ambition and regional connection sets the stage very nicely for our guest of honour today, who will share Singapore's perspectives in advancing the energy transition. Our guest of honour is Mr Peng Chiong Boon, Chairman of the Singapore Economic Development Board. As chairman, Mr Peng leads a key economic agency of the Singapore government under the Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry. And EDB's role is to strengthen Singapore's position as a central hub for business, innovation and talent. Ladies and gentlemen, will you please join me in welcoming to the stage, Mr Peng, to say a few words. Mr Peng, please. [00:06:18] Speaker 9: Mr Dilif Engel, CEO, Energy Systems DMB. Your Excellencies, Lev Trana, Ambassador of Norway to Singapore. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, a very good morning to all of you. It is my pleasure to join you today for the global launch of DMV's Energy Transition Outlook 2026. This is a special occasion for DMV and for Singapore as 2026 marks the 10th edition of the Energy Transition Outlook. And it is also the first time that it is launched in Asia. So congratulations to DMV for this milestone. And thank you very much for bringing together your partners, your clients and thought leaders in Singapore to discuss the forces shaping the global energy landscape. There is significance in holding the ETL launch and having this conversation here in Singapore. Energy demand in Southeast Asia is expected to grow substantially in the coming decades. Increasing geopolitical uncertainties, causing disruption to and volatility in energy supply are forcing countries to review and strengthen their energy resilience while maintaining affordability. At the same time, Southeast Asia countries continue to need to decarbonize to reduce their CO2 emissions. This means that Southeast Asian countries must navigate this difficult balance between economic growth, energy security and resilience, affordability and sustainability. It will require governments to work together and also in partnerships with the private sector to develop and implement better policies, technologies and solutions to enable this energy transition. For Singapore, the energy transition journey is even more challenging. As a small alternative energy disadvantaged country, our approach must be pragmatic. We have accelerated solar deployment. We are pursuing low carbon electricity imports and other renewable energy options. We are also exploring and developing low carbon technologies and encouraging pilot deployments with a view towards full commercial deployment if successful. And we are tackling the energy transition sector by sector, starting with the electrification of vehicles and decarbonization of carbon intensive sectors. The scale and complexity of the energy transition also mean that Singapore cannot make this journey alone. Collaboration across borders and between government industries and the wider ecosystem will be critical and necessary. To advance new technology, we will have to bring together the expertise needed to develop new solutions and translate them into practical applications. Fortunately, we are starting from a strong base. Singapore is already home to many global energy, chemicals, engineering and technology companies, alongside research institutions and other partners. And they hope together have the capabilities needed to develop, deploy and scale new solutions. We have seen how this ecosystem has come together to support emerging technologies in the past. One example is the Fortius Forticules Green Pioneer Dual Fuel Vessel. I hope I pronounced that correctly. It was converted here in Singapore to run on ammonia in combination with conventional fuels. DMV provided the technology qualification and classification. Government agencies led by the Maritam and Port Authority of Singapore work together with industries and research partners to enable the use of ammonia as a marine fuel on board, a dual fuel ammonia powered vessels in the port of Singapore. And this was the first in the world. This is the kind of collaboration we want to see more of. We welcome more companies with promising energies, technologies and capabilities to join our ecosystem, to use Singapore to develop and test paid new solutions, and eventually achieve commercial deployment. We are backing this ambition with funding and infrastructure support. Under our National Research Innovation and Enterprise 2030 Plan, the government has launched a $800 million decarbonisation grand challenge to advance technologies for the manufacturing and power sectors. As part of this grand challenge, the $250 million Singapore Pilots for Energy and Enterprise Decarbonisation, SPEED or SPEED in short, was launched in April this year to support companies to pilot and commercialise promising low-carbon technologies that are closer to market deployment. We are investing in the physical infrastructure for companies to test these technologies under industry-relevant conditions. The Low Carbon Technology Translation Testbed, or LC3, LCT-Cube in short, is currently being built on Jurong Island, Singapore's integrated energy and chemical hub. The LCT-Cube is a modular plug-and-play facility that allows companies to test and scale emerging technologies in areas such as carbon capture and utilisation and low-carbon hydrogen production process. And this helps to bridge the gap between R&D and commercial deployment. Companies themselves are also doing their part. For example, ExoMobil has set up their corporate labs in Singapore to develop low-carbon solutions. And CAPO is working with a consortium of companies, including Sumitomo Corporation, to undertake a front-end engineering design study on providing low-carbon ammonia solutions on Jurong Island for power generation. DMV has been an active part-player in Singapore's ecosystem too. Apart from the project that I mentioned just now, which is the Green Pioneer Dual Fuel Vessels, DMV supported the development of Tenge floating solar farm project, providing the technical expertise to help Singapore deploy floating solar system at scale. These are possible because of the deep expertise and capabilities that DMV has built up in Singapore over the years. Today, Singapore plays host to DMV's Asia-Pacific headquarters, its APEC digital hub, and its centre of excellence for maritime decarbonisation and smart shipping. We thank DMV for this long-standing partnership. We hope to work with DMV and your global partners, and many of them are here today, to do more, to bring even more global expertise to Singapore, to catalyze more collaborations between different players, and to jointly develop and deploy solutions that can serve Singapore, Southeast Asia, and beyond. So today's gathering of top leaders and global industry leaders, with the launch of the 10th Energy Transition Outlook Report as a discussion focal point, is an excellent place to start. I hope this morning's discussion will seed more new ideas and catalyze solutions. So on this note, I wish everyone a productive and fruitful discussion ahead. Thank you very much. [00:14:37] Yvonne Chan: Thank you very much, Mr. Peng, for also highlighting the steadfast partnership that Singapore has with DMV, and also pointing out the many exciting projects in the energy transition pipeline. So ladies and gentlemen, this is the 10th edition of the DMV's Energy Transition Outlook, which also reflects a decade of shifting policy priorities, and how our views of energy have changed. But how has that impacted DMV's forecasts? I would now like to hand the time to Ditlev Enghel, the CEO of DMV Energy Systems, to take us through the main findings of the 2026 report. Ditlev, please. [00:15:30] Speaker 10: Thank you very much. Chairman Peng, Mr. Ambassador, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us here this morning. I am very pleased to introduce the 10th annual edition of our Energy Transition Outlook, a forecast for the first time to 2060. We've seen a lot of change in 10 years of forecasting. And looking back over the last nine outlooks so far, I would say we have called developments rather well. In some cases, we were a little conservative, for example, in estimating how far solar, wind and especially batteries would grow. In other areas, we have been a little optimistic, for example, with our initial hydrogen and CCS estimates. Some things we got spot on, including the market uptake of EVs worldwide, and estimates so far of how quickly electrification is growing. One of the things that really distinguishes DMV's forecast is that it is constructed with input from thousands of engineers and professionals who are out in the field working with our customers on their energy infrastructure projects. We get a lot of real-world information, not least on cost. We see component costs of renewables falling as capacity is expanded exponentially. But more importantly, we see what happens to overall cost once you combine components and systems. For example, you can save some grid costs by adding storage and so on. Unsurprisingly, our cost assumptions have been broadly accurate so far. And looking ahead, we expect global GDP to grow considerably faster than total energy expenditure, as the energy systems become progressively more efficient. We must, of course, also be honest and admit that when we started forecasting ten years ago, we did not fully appreciate the degree to which the energy industry would come to be viewed as critical infrastructure. Energy assets are no longer seen simply as commercial investments. Increasingly, they are viewed through the lens of national resilience, economic competitiveness and security. A simple illustration is the third international North Sea summit held in Hamburg earlier this year. Alongside heads of governments and energy ministers, NATO was represented for the first time. That would have been difficult to imagine a decade ago, but it reflects a growing recognition that energy infrastructure is now considered being part of the strategic fabric of the modern economy. Finally, what surprises me the most is not what changed over the last decade. It is what did not. Ten years ago, we projected that fossil fuels will still supply roughly half of global primary energy in 2050. That remains our forecast today. In other words, despite extraordinary technological progressions, the transition follows the trajectory we predicted ten years ago. And please, don't get me wrong, we'll still have a historical rapid transition ahead of us. It is just that we haven't succeeded in speeding it up, despite the so-called "racketing mechanism" of the Paris Agreement, where every five years nations are meant to strengthen their commitments. But these days, it's hard to get anyone to focus on 2050, when the events unfolding in the Middle East, for instance, are so dramatic. The supply shock from the Iran war is, of course, very serious, and felt especially strongly in energy-import-dependent regions like Southeast Asia. But for long-term forecasters like us, the additional question we must ask is what does this supply shock mean for the long term? Well, history suggests that prolonged hydrocarbon supply disruptions permanently reduce demand by encouraging substitution and efficiency improvements. Today's shocks appear no different. For example, every EV sold, there being sold in record numbers since the start of the crisis, is a permanent shift away from oil. The longer the conflict in the Middle East goes on, the more intense demand destruction. Our modeling suggests that if the conflict lasts until 2030, then up to 3% of oil and 5% of gas demand will be destroyed. That is, in addition to the 2% to 3% downward shift in demand we have already seen this year. Moreover, the Middle East will lose a sizable portion, up to 20% of its long-term market share. Another trend reinforced by the supply shock from the invasion of Ukraine, and now also in the Middle East, is there is a growing divergence between energy importers and energy exporters. Importers are accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels. While advancing renewables more selectively and for different reasons than importing regions. So we are seeing the transition unfold differently between exporters and importers, but the transition is not slowing, because everyone is electrifying, some faster than others. Our forecast sees electricity more than doubling from today's level over the next three decades. Here, you can see that China is the fastest in the electrification race, with Sub-Saharan Africa remaining the least electrified region. By 2060, 95% of the world's electricity will come from non-fossil sources, versus 44% today. But electricity brings more than decarbonization, it also brings efficiencies. Renewables eliminate a vast amount of waste, heat for instance, compared with thermal generation. But as we show in this year's outlook, the main contribution to efficiency gain is the electrification of end use. Those EVs and heat pumps make a big difference, not only to household budgets, but to the overall pattern of the final energy demand. Artificial intelligence is bringing a new and very big source of load to the system. And forecasting the future of AI data center energy demand involves, as you will appreciate, many uncertainties. But our estimates show that this source of demand is not likely to be bigger than the electricity demand for either space cooling or EV charging. The notable exception here is North America, where AI data centers account for around half of power demand growth to 2030, and are already creating significant challenges for grid connection and expansion. I think it's fair to say that the AI race is becoming a system race, where success depends on how effectively computing infrastructure and energy infrastructure will evolve together. More broadly, for the world's energy system over the last decade, much of the focus has been on generation, building enough solar, wind, and in some regions, gas-fired capacity. The focus is now, quite rightly, shifting from generation to integration. In simple terms, that means extracting the greatest value from every watt generated. In renewables dominated power systems, that means having sufficient transmission to move electricity where it's needed. And enough storage, like battery storage shown in this chart, to shift electricity through time. Finally, we need flexible demand that can respond to changing supply. And getting that combination right requires what we have defined as system thinking. A solar panel can be efficient, a battery can be efficient, a transmission line can be efficient. But efficiency at the system level is something quite different. It comes from ensuring that all of these elements work together at the right place and at the right time. Increasingly, that is the challenge our customers face. And increasingly, it is the challenge DNV helps them solve. The tougher the decarbonization challenge, the more system thinking matters. As we know from the excellent work of the Global Center for Maritime Decarbonization here in Singapore. Large-scale hydrogen and advanced biofuel ecosystems will be extraordinary complex. Picture all the planning, logistic, infrastructure and policy alignment required to establish a successful green shipping corridor. At the same time, technology developments continue to shift the boundaries between what must be fueled and what can be electrified. Falling battery costs and improving performance are making a direct electrification viable for more heavy transport application than previously thought. But some sectors remain stubbornly hard to electrify. Decarbonizing aviation, shipping and heavy industry still face significant cost and infrastructure barrier. As a result, in this year's outlook, we have again lowered our expectations for hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels. The sources needed to decarbonize hard to electrify sectors are too valuable to use indiscriminately. Sustainable biomass for advanced biofuel is limited. Infrastructure takes time to build. And public funding is finite. And public funding is finite. Policymakers cannot wish these constraints away. Their task is to direct scare resources towards the applications where they deliver the greatest system benefit. And the guiding principle should be electrify where you can. Reserve scare molecules for where you can't. The greatest scarcity of all in its transition is time. Between now and 2050, the world will only manage to reduce emissions by 44%. That is very far from net zero. Our forecasts find that the remaining carbon budgets associated with 1.5 degrees centigrade and 2 degrees centigrade are rapidly running out. While the pathway we are currently on leads us to 2.3 degrees of warming by the end of the century. The transition pace needs to accelerate to keep climate goals in sight. Moving faster may cost a little more in the short run. But on that front, our forecast also unearths some good news. Total spending on energy is falling as a share of the global economy. As energy becomes more efficient, affordable and productive, the opportunities for our customers to create value across the energy value chain expand. So, is decarbonisation really front of mind for energy industry professionals? I would say right now not at present as much as energy security. In fact, we have now factored in our forecast a permanent security premium. We find that nations are willing to pay up to 30% more for the security of domestic energy supply. And we assume that this trend will strengthen. But I will close with the thought that energy security and decarbonisation broadly pull in the same direction. Ten years ago, the question was, and even if, an energy transition would unfold. Today, the question is how to manage it wisely. We have the technology and cost of a sure heading in the right direction. The task now is implementation and delivery. At DNV, we remain optimistic on both technology and economics. We believe a faster scaling of electrification and decarbonisation still is the best way forward for a global energy transition. This is exactly why we have produced the ETO going on for 10 years. We all need to understand how the energy system works and how better informed decisions in both the private and public sector are essential for a faster and long-term resilient transition. I would therefore like to encourage all to continue to work even closer together so we can safeguard life, property and environment. I hope the 10th ETO will be a good way to stimulate those conversations and to all leaders' decisions. Thank you so much for your attention. [00:31:13] Speaker 11: The Strait of Hormuz crisis did more than disrupt supply. It exposed a major vulnerability that many nations can no longer ignore. For energy importing economies, dependence on global fuel markets has become a strategic risk. The response? Accelerate electrification, expand domestic power systems and reduce exposure to imported fuels. But for energy exporters, the calculation is different. As many countries move to cut fossil fuel dependence, producers are seeking to maximise the value of their resources while demand remains strong. And as geopolitics becomes more uncertain, the massive investments required to secure energy, whichever path is chosen, are becoming more complex and more consequential than ever. [00:32:12] Yvonne Chan: So what we've just heard and perhaps is no surprise is that the energy transition is already unfolding in a more fragmented world, riddled by geopolitical rivalry, contesting supply chains and this increasingly complex relationship between energy importers and exporters. Governments and businesses no longer have to contend with just decarbonizing, but they also have to pursue energy security and resilience. So can these priorities advance together or will they ultimately slow the transition? I'd like to kick off this first panel discussion by going to my panelists. Let me introduce them. We have Mr. Chris Ong, the CEO of SeaTrium. I'm then joined by Lin Lu, the CEO of the Global Center for Maritime Decarbonization. On her left, we have Jesper Krarup-Holtz, who is the partner and head of Asia Pacific at Copenhagen Offshore Partners. And rounding up the panel today is Mr. Jason Bedford, the Visiting Research Fellow at the East Asia Institute at the National University of Singapore. So it is a pretty dicey topic, lots to get into. And I'd like Jason to start with the macro picture. Jason, we know that global energy markets are built on the expectations that trade is supposed to be open, supply chains are meant to be more interconnected. But are we now moving towards a more regionalized energy system, Jason? And does that make the transition slower, more expensive or just different? [00:33:49] Speaker 12: I would actually broadly say no. [00:33:53] Yvonne Chan: No difference? No. [00:33:56] Speaker 12: I think that we're actually still globalizing. But when you look at the backdrop, what does energy security mean for the United States? It means hydrocarbons, more traditional energies. The U.S. can maintain its economy with just those resources. I respectfully disagree with that view over the long term. But that's certainly a concept that's entrenched in the U.S. What does energy security mean for China? It means renewables. It means nuclear. And when we look what's happened, it's very easy to see this as a regionalized trend. You know, I think the most interesting place to look at right now is Pakistan, where the sales of Chinese solar products have skyrocketed such that demand for coal-powered power plants in Pakistan has dropped sharply. Households are now being restricted from selling power back to the grid. There's taxes to buy solar panels in Pakistan at the moment. So what you have is a regionalization of countries that are on the wrong side of the Hormuz Straits conflict. On one hand, and populations that are deeply sensitive to energy driven inflation. So it looks like it's a global south, southeast Asia phenomenon. We have huge uptake of electric vehicles, solar and so on. But I think over the longer term, everybody understands that energy security for the moment really means a reliance on fickle, uncertain energy sources. And at the moment, that really looks like energy coming out of the Middle East for the most part. So I actually think the ramp up for renewables is more positive at the moment and should move faster. [00:35:42] Yvonne Chan: So that means to you then the transition is how would you describe it in one word? Because I used expensive. Is it slower or just different? What would be your description? [00:35:52] Speaker 12: Faster and depending on where you are in the world, cheaper. I mean, the other issue is dealing with industrial policy. Some countries are extremely sensitive to having their manufacturing industries hollowed out, i.e. Europe. If you go to Australia, half the cars on the road are Chinese electric vehicles, mostly BYDs. Australia doesn't have an automotive industry to worry about. So it really depends on where. But I would say broadly speaking, I love the chart that was just shown on energy costs as a percentage of GDP. I completely agree with that with that trend line. [00:36:31] Yvonne Chan: Thanks, Jason. So you opened with the U.S. and China. We're going to come back to that at the end of the discussion. But I want to ask Chris then, based on what you've just heard Jason say, does that reflect some of the concerns from your customers? Citrium delivers infrastructure that's tied to both fossil fuels and the energy transition. And following Hormuz, are your clients now, are their priorities about energy resilience changing? And are they willing to pay a premium for it, like what Ditlev highlighted? [00:36:59] Speaker 13: Well, we'll come back to the question on premium. Citrium actually supplies engineered solution, the energy solution offshore. So when we take a look, our strategic approach has always been the energy trilemma. So security, transition, and of course cost. At this present moment, what we are seeing right now is actually a blended requirement from the customer. And they use the word resilience. The key thing is about, you know, whether it's a transition question, whether it is a security question or cost question. It depends on the geography. Whether we are supplying hydrocarbon solution to Americas or Africa or the renewable solutions to Europe or Asia. It is all about resilience. Customers want certainty, predictability, and on premium, they still want the best value add cost. So how? But at the present moment, I believe that when we take a look, because a lot of offshore projects are long cycle investment. The key thing is about risk premium. And as mentioned, predictability. So that ranks very high in a lot of investment today, because when you do infrastructure investment, it takes three to four years for you to actually complete the construction. So a lot of consideration goes down into whether the product will come out on time so that they can generate the energy, whether it's molecules or electrons on time. I think that's real focus at this present moment, whether they will pay a premium for it depends on competition and available capacity and know how in the market. [00:38:45] Yvonne Chan: But what they're demanding is predictability before investing. And of course, they still want value for money. I want to bring Jasper into the conversation and look at the offshore wind space because offshore wind is meant to strengthen energy security, too. But these projects are often confounded by political supply chain and cost pressures. Right. Ditlev did highlight in the report that the energy transition is now more about integration rather than generation. So Jasper, what do you think it will take to push offshore wind projects over the line? And do developers now need to also address the grid and supporting infrastructure? [00:39:25] Speaker 14: So what is most important for offshore wind developers is really regulatory stability. When we are building out an offshore wind farms, it takes first around five years to develop a project, then three years to construct, and we operate for around 30 years. So considering those timelines, stability in the regulatory environment is really, really fundamental for us to invest billions in these projects. We are developing 20 gigawatts in the APAC region, and we see different sort of bottlenecks or inhibitors in the different markets in South Korea, where we constructed our first project and have a huge pipeline. We see grid connections being the most sort of important bottleneck in the build out. In Taiwan, we have seen now successfully around five gigawatts of offshore wind farms being delivered. Grid connections are being delivered on time. So we actually see that Taiwan has actually managed to find a setup that works. We are even selling the power directly to tech companies like TSMC and Hyperscalers. If we go to the Philippines, where we are also developing, there is a little bit of a hiatus right now. The government has suspended the auction for a few months to sort out the infrastructure. And we do expect, however, they will come back on track in the next few months and launch the auction for that will be the first auction in the Philippines. Over time, grid will also be one of the inhibiting factors. So I think different countries have different bottlenecks, but most likely grid will be one that we see in most countries that will sort of decide the pace of the implementation. [00:41:28] Yvonne Chan: So you're saying regulatory stability is what could get these projects over the line, but at the same time, the grid, different conditions of the grid might then be that big impediment. And I'm looking at Lynn speaking of impediment and fragmentation because the shipping industry is where fragmentation gets especially complicated, right? It is a global industry operating across different national regulations, competing fuel pathways, uneven infrastructure. Lynn, tell us today, what is the biggest impediment confronting this industry? is there enough certainty there before, you know, the maritime players decide to invest? [00:42:08] Speaker 15: Thanks, Yvonne. I think we should see shipping as there are opportunities and challenges. I mean, I think if you look at the conflict, the beauty about shipping is that it's a mobile asset. That means when there are conflicts, you can redeploy them where they're needed most. And you see that over and over again. You see that with the Red Sea crisis. So ships don't go through the Swiss Canal. They go through, I mean, they go around the Cape of Good Hope. With Hormuz happening, ships are now redeployed because Asia receives much of the energy from the Middle East. Now we see a lot of trade from America to Asia bringing the energy from further away but bringing it to Asia. So that's the opportunity with shipping. Along with that opportunity comes challenges and specifically challenges associated with decarbonizing shipping. Just to kind of give you a specific example, going around the Cape of Good Hope, a container vessel can extend its sailing time by as many as 12 days or as much as 40% more fuel. So that's really bad news for decarbonizing shipping. I would sort of say when we look at decarbonizing shipping, I come back to what Chris had mentioned earlier on, which is that we need to contextualize decarbonization against energy security. Like what does it look like today when energy security is front and center on our minds? And to us at GCMD, this means focusing on solutions that can be adopted today that shows pathways where you can actually address both decarbonization as well as energy security. So I'll give you two examples. One is biofuels. Because biofuels does not require a digital CapEx investment on the ship side, it's a drop in fuel. So being able to use biofuels means the ship owner can hedge, right? It provides optionality against very, very expensive fuel prices today. And it's also a pathway to decarbonizing. The other would be energy efficiency that Detlev had mentioned before. Wind sales and things like this, not only is it good for reducing the amount of fuel consumption that you need today, which means it's better for the environment, it's better for your pocket too, when the fuel prices are really high. So I think we need to kind of focus on what we can do today, contextualize what it means to decarbonize in this geopolitical headwinds and contextualize it against the need for focusing on energy security as well. [00:44:56] Yvonne Chan: It's like finding your own customized solutions against the background that you have no choice but to operate in. Well, it needs to be fit for purpose, basically. Exactly. I want to come back to that investment piece here, Chris, because like you mentioned in your first reply, companies need to invest decades or a few years before the returns come to shore. But then if you look at Keppel's recent news, you've made investments to further floating offshore wind in the UK's Celtic seas. You have two FPSOs already setting sail in Brazil and your design concept for a floating data center has been approved. So in this volatile environment, how do you distinguish them between the short term political pressures versus a structural change? And what would prompt you to deploy or alternate your capital? [00:45:45] Speaker 13: Fundamentally, we know where's our strength. Of course, the key thing is about investing, looking at the present short term triggers, which is of course, traits of hormones and how messy and unpredictable the world is today. But fundamentally, we are capable in terms of engineering solutions across the whole transition, whether it is security or transition solution or even future energy solutions. This is our forte and the ability to control and to maintain supply chain integrity for customers and deliver on time on budget. Now, based on that, we look beyond the short term triggers. We take a look at what are the signs around where the energy transition will lead us to. And that's why this session is very important for us to understand what are the major trends and we are largely aligned. So if we take a look at how we invest, whether it is existing security issue of improving carbon footprint of hydrocarbon products, that's where we invest our know-how and keep looking at technical solutions to improve and make big changes on carbon footprint and emissions around existing products, make it more efficient. And at the same time, we like to invest in around capabilities where you take a look at the ability to talk about future energy solutions for customers, not only in the transition piece, it's also for the future molecules or electron solution that are evolving. Then, of course, there are other floating solutions that you talk about energy consumption and energy efficiency like floating data centers, where you are able to build them in a very controlled environment, bring it to site together with floating power. So at the end of the end of the day, when we do all our investment around it, it's really aligned to again back to the trilemma question. We're solving an issue, we're solving an energy issue. So when we talk about investment, we cannot just rely on short term triggers and long term trends like what we just announced today is very important. [00:48:06] Yvonne Chan: So like falling back on the C-TRIM's core capabilities. But it's interesting that you've made further investments into floating offshore wind in the UK's Atlantic Sea because, Jesper, the DNV outlook shows that floating offshore wind is now moving slower than previously forecast, mainly due to cost. Is this a temporary setback while the economics catch up or do you think the entire sector needs to reset? [00:48:29] Speaker 14: It is true that floating offshore wind is moving a bit slower than we predicted some five, ten years ago. But we do, however, expect that this is just a temporary setback. Recently, we are just developing a project in Scotland and in Korea and were this year awarded a PPA by the governments for 600 megawatt in total. And so we think it is just sort of a temporary setback before floating wind will take off. Around the world there are certain countries, Scotland, Korea, potentially Japan, Norway, where the physical characteristics are such that there is a limitation to fixed bottom projects. And therefore we see these countries being the first movers in the floating agenda. So we expect that that is going to come and will from there move into gradually more and more countries. [00:49:32] Yvonne Chan: Okay, that's still quite encouraging. Some breathing room for floating offshore wind. I want to come back to Jason then because we've heard about Chris talking about business response to short-term geopolitical pressures, structural changes. How are governments responding to the same thing in this fragmented world? What are you seeing? [00:49:51] Speaker 12: I think you're seeing a structural response. It looks like we're responding to a short-term event, but I'd be careful not to mistake the trigger for the trend. I think that the key theme over the next decade is going to be energy security. Every major economy from Japan, Korea, China has been well ahead of the rest of the pack. Everyone is seeking to diversify their sources, including where it's not necessarily cost-efficient to do so. I don't see that changing. I think this is a deep structural change underway in the global energy system. And then going to Chris's point on electrification is going to continue to expand rapidly because the needs of energy is beginning to change, shifting towards AI, data centers, and so on. Thank you, Jason. [00:50:49] Yvonne Chan: Let me go back to Lynn because I'm still very interested in that investment piece because the maritime industry is being asked to invest before there's a certain set of standards or whether we know which green fuel will ultimately prevail. Do you think green shipping corridors might be a solution to break this maritime investment deadlock or what do you think the industry needs to actually move at scale? [00:51:18] Speaker 15: I mean, fundamentally, I think it's regulatory certainty, right? For those of you who are in the maritime sector, you know that the maritime sector also has seen a setback. So there is this net zero framework by the IMO that will be up for discussion again in December and for approval. There are two pieces to the net zero framework. And I think it's challenging because there is the money piece that's tied together with it. And the two pieces, one is the standard, the technical piece. And then the other is how do you fund the transition? So the money piece. The money piece is the one that's politicized. The money piece is the one that's controversial. The standard piece, I think there's general acceptance. And I think we recognize that these two pieces are going to go at different speeds. I think it would be really good for the technical piece to kind of be resolved faster because that provides certainty for the sector, for shipowners to see so that they can now proceed with the investment. I think that's super, super, super important. And we shouldn't conflate these two pieces. As long as certainty is something that shipowners and other stakeholders are looking for, I think it's important to build confidence and build trust. How do you do that? How do you do that? In the system. And so at least at GCMD, we think what's important is MRV, measuring, reporting and verification. If you can prove that the emissions reduction are real, then they become, you can price them, you can finance them, they can be rewarded for. So measuring, reporting and verification becomes really important. And I'll give you just a quick example. So last year we had completed Project Captured where we demonstrated that we can offload CO2. We did this in China, in Shanghai. And then we converted that CO2 into precipitated calcium carbonate. We tracked that CO2 to show how much was actually converted into precipitated calcium carbonate. DNV helped us verify that. And just two months ago, we heard that this precipitated calcium carbonate that was formed, because of the verification, because of the data that we collected across that entire value chain, that the shipowner actually received reduction in the EU allowance surrender that they needed to make. So linking, basically, emissions reduction to a commercial value. [00:53:53] Yvonne Chan: So the MRVs are the way to go. Thank you, Lin. Okay, I want a quick answer from you, Jason, because I said I would come back to the US-China piece. Now, if US-China rivalry is going to be the defining relationship of the next decade, is that going to accelerate the diversification of energy supply chain? Or should we be looking at the transition being divided into technological and industrial blocks? Jason, quick answer. [00:54:19] Speaker 12: So, yeah, it's definitely that. I think that the relationship between the US and China is going to be the defining relationship over the next decade. But when you ask that question, you're sort of asking that from a framework or you've got two superpowers that are equivalent. I don't think they're equivalent. China's trade leverage, trade restrictions are extremely, extremely, extremely efficient. The US doesn't have anything comparable. And when you think about the effectiveness of export controls, it's, you know, two ways to leave it. One, time to pain. How quickly does this bite? In the case of rare earths in the US, about nine days. Aviation components, about nine years. So your time to pain and then your economic blowback. You know, rare earths, which is an example I always like to come back to, you know, $8 billion of annual sales. But it affects about $4 to $6 trillion of global GDP. So what I expect over the next decade is stops and starts. But it never really gets out of control because China's leverage is quite endearing. And that's before you go beyond things like pharmaceuticals, chemicals, vitamins. Just in the critical minerals alone, it's an incredible piece of leverage. So I expect the transition to speed up. I expect cost efficiencies to improve. And I actually reckon that'll be a relatively stable decade so long as a hot war doesn't break out somewhere in the Taiwan Straits. [00:55:46] Yvonne Chan: That's still pretty optimistic. Okay, so from US-China, Jasper, I also want a quick answer from you. Tell us, are Europe and Asia-Pacific, because you work extensively across both regions. Are we developing very different models for the energy transition now? And what do you think each side could learn from the other? [00:56:03] Speaker 14: So offshore wind started in Europe, in Denmark actually in 1991. So that's 35 years ago, the first offshore wind farm was installed. And as I see it, the last 10, 15 years, Europe has been teaching countries here in Asia how to do offshore wind. But at the same time, the Chinese market has actually delivered a capacity that is equivalent to the rest of the world in terms of offshore wind. And we are now starting to see the Chinese supply chain are starting to deliver cables and foundations into European projects. So I do expect over time, we will see more and more Chinese suppliers getting into the markets and thereby teaching us what they have learned over the last 10 years in the Chinese offshore wind market. [00:56:54] Yvonne Chan: I like that. There's a bit of cross-pollination there. So I want to wrap this discussion because the clock is ticking to red by asking each of my panelists to just give me the one assumption truly about the energy transition because there are so many assumptions out there. But I want to know your one assumption about the energy transition that we cannot afford to make right now. I want to start with Jason and we'll move down the line to Chris. Jason, just give me one. [00:57:19] Speaker 12: I don't think this is about cost and decarbonisation anymore. I think the key driver of the energy transition is energy security and energy inflation. [00:57:29] Yvonne Chan: Energy security and energy inflation. That's what the transition is about. Yes, Ver? [00:57:33] Speaker 14: To me, it's all about delivery. I think we just need to get going. We cannot afford not to do it. [00:57:39] Yvonne Chan: So you're focused on delivery. Absolutely. [00:57:41] Speaker 15: Linh? I think you had asked what we can't assume anymore. And I would say, I mean, given the conversation, net zero by 2050 is something we cannot assume anymore. Not so much because of the target, but because of the timeline. [00:57:55] Yvonne Chan: Do you agree with the 2060 or do you think it's further than that? [00:58:00] Speaker 15: You're going to put me on the spot? We'll agree with 2060. I mean, I think it's challenging. We need to work as fast as we can. And so what this means is we need to see and figure out ways where we can align decarbonisation goals with energy security goals. I gotcha. Chris? [00:58:20] Speaker 13: My view would be that the transition is inevitable, but it's not single dimension. So you will have progress and development in all different segments, whether it is electrification, whether it's offshore hydrocarbon or whether it's renewables. We cannot assume that resources and systems are always there to accelerate the transition, which means to say that my assumption, when we put into whether the transition is faster or slower, lies a lot around the testing of new technology and the regulation that go quickly into it to lead that transition before it's investable. [00:59:05] Yvonne Chan: So it's like your energy, your version of the energy transition will be a multi-pronged one moving in different directions. Thank you, Chris. [00:59:12] Speaker ?: Thank you, Chris. [00:59:12] Yvonne Chan: I think the most uncomfortable conclusion from the outlook this year is that the energy transition, it is moving rapidly by historical standards, but we know that it's moving far too slowly by climate standards. And for my panelists today, it's very clear that the energy transition is already changing shape. They've highlighted what the factors are needed to speed it up. But I think the main challenge too is for us to better manage the competition without losing the cooperation that's needed to forward the transition. Ladies and gentlemen, will you please put your hands together to thank my first suite of guests, Chris Ong, Lin Lu, Jesper Holtz and Jason Bedford. Thank you very much. [00:59:56] Speaker 11: The world is electrifying faster than ever. Over the next two decades, the rate of electrification will be more than double that of the previous 20 years. At the same time, AI is driving a new wave of electricity demand. The question is how we deliver it. Renewables offer the fastest path to scale and remain the lowest cost source of new power. Nuclear provides firm, reliable generation, but at a higher cost. But generation is only part of the challenge. The next phase of the energy transition is about system integration. Expanding grids, improving flexibility, updating market design. Energy security does not only require more power, it requires reliable power, delivered at scale. Do we need firm power, fast scale, or both? [01:01:06] Yvonne Chan: We turn now to electrification and whether the answer lies in nuclear power or renewables for many energy important countries that are seeking energy resilience. I think the option has often been pretty binary. You either take nuclear, renewables, or perhaps a bit of both. But we know that electrification is more than just generation. It's about addressing the grid infrastructure, which we kind of touched on just a little bit in the first panel. It's about looking at storage, flexibility, and the ability to meet the rapidly growing demand. So to examine how all these pieces fit together, I'm very pleased to welcome my second set of speakers. I'm joined by Mr. Kazunari Fukui, who is the Asia Decarbonization Leader at GE Vernova. And then we have Dr. Yu Zhujun, or Ava, who is the Global Marketing Director for BYD. And rounding up our panel today is Mr. Chua Yonghui, the Managing Director at Keppel Energy Nexus. So I'm going to turn to Kaz first because GE Vernova offers both nuclear and renewable solutions. The title of this panel is Firm Power or Fast Scale. So you have renewables that can be deployed pretty quickly. But at the same time, nuclear offers that option of Firm, low carbon power delivered on a much longer timeline. How are policymakers then assessing this trade-off, Kaz? [01:02:31] Speaker 16: Oh, great. Thank you very much for the question, Yvonne. So I'd like to frame this question as not either or kind of question, but why can't we all have both here? So increasingly, we're facing an industry where electricity demand is rapidly increasing. DataLive showed us the chart, which today just over 20% is from electricity in terms of global energy usage. That's doubling over the next three decades in the airport states. And with that, really the question to the policymakers and regulators and people designing this is not about how quickly can we just add on electrons or electricity. But how do we make sure that the system, the resilient system is developed? And then for that, really the portfolio technology is important. We talk about generation, the grid, the battery storage flexibility. So renewables can be added quickly. But that requires the Firm support by form of gas power, for example, with the pathway to decarbonize. We really believe the gas is the fourth market player in terms of adding renewables in place. But it is a role for nuclear to play as well in terms of providing, as you said, the Firm, low carbon, dependable power in a place. So I think it's important in thinking designing these things early on so that we don't have to end up in this trade-off between the Firm and the quick power to add. [01:03:50] Yvonne Chan: So you're the viewpoint that having a suite of technologies would be the best option. And if we look at the integration side of things, then, and I want to come to Yonghui. So capital infrastructure, for that matter, they operate across the entire energy value chain, including the grid infrastructure. Do you think we're framing the question too narrowly by saying, is it Firm power or fast scale? And should the more urgent challenge be about whether we can build a system that can integrate whatever technology we choose? [01:04:21] Speaker 17: Right now, there's a lot of pressure to bring about electrification. A large part of it is driven by data centers. Data centers are no longer hosting just cat photos. It's a strategic compute. It's a huge productivity tool from a national perspective. So there's a lot of pressure to want to build megawatts, gigawatts on a very quick, fast pace. And if you want to build something fast today, the fastest to power, fastest to the market is actually behind the meter solar panels. You can do it and you can do it the fastest. If you want to do a nuclear power plant, it takes what, 10 years of planning, another 10 years of building, at least. Right. So it's important, I will say that to that question, it's important to consider a few things. One is that every mode of power generation has its own intricacies, its own nuances. So for example, renewable is fast, it's quick, you don't have to import fuel. That's the benefit of it from an energy security perspective, but you have to live with the intermittency. [01:05:37] Speaker ?: Right. [01:05:38] Speaker 17: So that's one thing. So understanding the different blocks, the different types of power generation and how they add to the grid. The second thing is, whatever you're adding today has to run for another 20 to 30 years. So whoever is the decision maker deciding to plan a new power plant has to consider whether is this asset still relevant in 2050 and 2060. That's why I think the ETO comes in very helpful because it's important to imagine. It's not just looking at the current state of play, but also to imagine what it will look like in 10 years, 20 years down the road. And asking ourselves whether whatever we're investing is still relevant. [01:06:26] Yvonne Chan: So many considerations there, Yonghui. I'm glad you pointed that out. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. That's a great point. That's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. [01:06:36] Speaker ?: I think that's a great point. [01:06:36] Yvonne Chan: I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. I think that the battery technology could, you know, change the way we think about firm power or are there still limits to what storage can realistically overcome. Dr. Yu. [01:07:01] Speaker 18: Thanks. Thanks for the question. BYD has more than 120,000 people. Okay. I stand corrected. Yes. More than 120 R&D. Okay. Only R&D. And such a scale is the foundation for rapid technology iteration regarding firm energy. Although nuclear power is the reliable low carbon baseload source, the energy transition cannot rely on a single technology pathway. In 2025, BYD, so the total shipment of our energy storage system exceeded 60 gigawatt hours. The core value of energy storage is its millisecond level response to grid fluctuation and delivering an economically viable solution to the intermittency challenge of the renewables. And in BYD storage, battery storage and nuclear power are not mutually exclusive. And so to be precise, battery storage, it can, sorry, is emerging as the indispensable regulator in the new power for the new power grid. [01:08:17] Yvonne Chan: It's like quite an encouraging alternative because I see Kaz nodding because it comes back to your first point of why can't you offer both solutions. Absolutely. But that balance will be very different across different markets, isn't it Kaz? How do you arrive at the correct technology combination? And what does this say about the importance of system integration? Maybe I'll let you answer that before I come back to Dr. Yu. [01:08:48] Speaker 16: No, I think that's a great point. And then, so if you look at that across the countries and regions, there is no single technology or suite of technology, which can do solve the issues, right? Each country is starting from different starting point, different priorities as well. Some are looking at energy security and energy independence as a core. Some are constrained by the affordability, the land, the fuel situation, geographical constraints, et cetera. So all these diverse constraints, but common to amongst all is the fact that increasingly the energy, the electricity is linked to the economic prosperity and prosperity of people as well. And that's a common factor going across. Then so then for the people designing the system, what's important is that really thinking about not the technology, but thinking about what system is required in order to do this. So not just trying to pick the winning technology, but really asking first what system is required and designing things around it, because no technology can stand alone. If you think about the value of renewable, it's actually dependent on the strong grid to enable it. Value of the battery is dependent on the dispatchability of the battery as well. So really the system thinking is important. And that's why I'm quite encouraged that ETO reports highlights the fact that the integration next decade is what the integration rather than just renewable addition. We completely concur with the view as well. [01:10:06] Yvonne Chan: Yeah. Thank you, Kaz. Dr. Yu, do you have any more to add about or reflect on what Kaz just said? Yes. [01:10:13] Speaker 18: So as the wind and solar generation continue to rise, the energy storage can equip the grid with peak shaving and frequency regulation and backup power capacities. So for the new power system, there will be not only one technology that dominates the future. [01:10:37] Yvonne Chan: Well, this ties up this side of the discussion very nicely, because you also touched a little bit about solar, this wind, this nuclear. But I want to talk about natural gas. It's something that was raised in the ETO that we've not talked about. Yeong Hui, I'm looking at you. You look like you're ready to answer this question already. You know, how important is natural gas to an energy importing city state like Singapore? You know, how much of do we depend on it for our system reliability right now? [01:11:06] Speaker 17: So for those who are not familiar, Singapore's power generation relies heavily on gas. So power generation is about 95% based on gas. So gas is critical to Singapore and will continue to remain so. I was at the Energy Conference in Europe earlier this year and was the first time I heard the term used for gas. It's not a transition fuel, people are starting to use gas as a destination fuel. So that's just to give you a sense of what, how important gas will continue to remain in the whole system. Why is this important? I would say that batteries have progressed tremendously over the last few years. I mean, 120,000 researchers in developing batteries. So the technology has progressed tremendously. But today, if you look at the matrix, one matrix that I look at is actually the kilowatt hour per kilogram. How much energy are you storing in per kilogram of battery versus, let's say, per kilogram of gasoline or natural gas. And I would say that batteries are still orders of magnitude off compared to fossil fuel. And from a national security perspective, you want to be able to store something that can last for not days or hours. You want to have something that can last for months or years. In the case of nuclear fuel, you can store years worth of nuclear fuel. So it's important. So gas today, we can store gas, a month worth of gas. So that's an important consideration as well. [01:12:58] Yvonne Chan: Yeah. You make a really good point. It also comes down to the predictability factor that Chris talked about in the first panel. Can I quickly ask about your opinion on hydrogen there? Is there still space in the discussion for hydrogen? Certainly. [01:13:11] Speaker 17: I would say that hydrogen, Capcom has been very active developing hydrogen. And it's proven to be a lot more difficult than we thought it was. Hydrogen, again, I come back to energy density. Hydrogen has the highest energy density per kilogram, but the volume is just tremendous. And how do you handle that kind of volume and the temperature that you're dealing with? So it's challenging. But coming back to my earlier point, when you invest in a power generation asset today, you need to consider for 20 years, 30 years. So if you are building a gas power plant today, then the question naturally will come, if I build a power plant today and start up in 2030, is this power plant still relevant in 2050 and 2055? And how do I decarbonise that power plant? Very quickly, hydrogen will come back to the equation. So maybe it's not now that you're not going to fire hydrogen now, but you'll fire hydrogen when the economics is right. And also we need to design and build the power plant today with a view in mind that potentially carbon capture will come in. Right. So we watch very carefully what's happening in net zero T side project in UK, for example. So those are interesting projects, demonstration projects that will give us a vision of how do we plan for the future. [01:14:46] Yvonne Chan: So taking the longer term view and on that note of long term view and building the next plant, Kaz, I want to come to you about SMRs. There's so much buzz about it, but we know that GE Vinova also has a facility in Canada that's going to start generating power from 2030. Will it be relevant in 2050? Let's see. But how do you think SMRs can overcome the cost overruns and the construction delays that's typically associated with nuclear generating nuclear? [01:15:15] Speaker 16: No, great point. And then we're quite excited to be part of many of the first project globally. So you mentioned the net zero T side that's with CCS. We're working on a piece nuclear side with Ontario Power Generation. We're working on the first SMR in Western world. This is 300 megawatt SMR BRWX 300 coming online 2030 timeframe. Now, the great thing about this is that this has been designed with all the knowledge of the challenges associated with traditional large nuclear project. So various considerations to take into account. Number one great thing is it's based on proven technology. So we leverage the licensed technology know-how as well as the existing few, licensed few for that purpose as well. And then how to reduce the first of a kind risk in doing so. So that's number one. Number two is the modularity. And so emphasis is on not the economy of scale, but emphasizing economy of many. So how do you standardize? How do you modularize? How do you make sure many of the things are done offsite in factory where things can be adjusted and reduce the risk associated with scheduling and construction and so on? And third importantly is the safety mechanism. So incorporating all the knowledge is exactly the safety wise is being improved, utilizing the gravities, the natural circulation and so on, making sure it's a safe system. So all these things need to take into consideration. We're very encouraged in terms of progress and hopefully that this progress. And the important thing is that we're now moving from PowerPoint to PowerPoint, right? It's concept to reality. It's becoming real. Whether we talk about CCS, we talk about the SMR. So I think it's important that when we design these things, we take this into consideration. And then back to the topic of designing system, let's build a system knowing that these technologies are now coming online as well. [01:17:04] Yvonne Chan: So some of the ways to counteract the traditional impediments would be, like you said, risk, the safety measurements and the key one, modularity. I like that. Thanks, Kaz. But I'm still very interested to hear what's happening in the battery space, Dr. Yu. Because with 120,000 people in R&D, can you tell us what technological developments could expand the potential of what batteries can do for the power system in the next decade? I mean, we've got the nuclear, we have our forever commitment to gas, right, Yonghui? But come tell us batteries. [01:17:35] Speaker 18: Thank you for the question. And yes, so looking for the past decade, the most significant changes in battery technology, in lithium ion batteries is in the, it's not only merely in the chemistry, but we think it's in the users, in the changes of user needs. So the industry has shifted from NCM as the mainstream to the LFP dominated. And this is not a regression in energy density, but the leap forward in the understanding of the demand. And the users not simply chasing the range figure, but prioritise higher safety and high integration and all-round experience upgrading. So BYD's Blade Battery, I think, is exactly the AOFP battery that designed to meet those demands. And today we are witnessing the emerging of the new layer, actually, I think, because we are a combination deploying a combination of flash charging station deployment combined with vehicle flash charging capabilities. So to erase the range anxiety and refueling anxiety to meet the energy replenishment anytime, anywhere. [01:19:06] Yvonne Chan: That's very exciting. Thank you. And with, I must ask my gentlemen after the panel as well, what they think about it. But because of time, I really want to also talk about what the energy demands mean for our growth in AI and the data centres, which we just had a little bit of a sprinkling of a conversation in the earlier panel. And maybe I'll just come to you first, Dr. Yu, what can battery power do to meet the AI-related demand without putting further strain on the grid? And then I'll come to Yonghui and then Kaz. [01:19:39] Speaker 18: Yeah, for AI, we think that we characterise AI power as high power consumption. It is, yeah. Yeah, drastic load fluctuation and also AI's explosive growth. So we positioned AI power solution as we have, like, from generation side to rack level solutions. So first for power, green power coupled energy storage, it can smooth the fluctuation of wind and solar power and provide stable power supply. And for computing power guaranteed and energy storage, we provide high rate backup power and with a millisecond level power support. And it can guarantee the smooth supply of the power surge from GPU clusters. [01:20:47] Yvonne Chan: Yeah. You're making quite a compelling case there for battery storage and meeting AI-related demand, Dr. Yu. Yonghui, how would an energy importing city-state like Singapore meet our insatiable demand for AI without compromising on our system reliability? [01:21:02] Speaker 17: So I think it's important to go back to the fundamental design of the grid. I have this analogy, which I would say that the grid is like an Oreo cookie. So you have on one side, assuming you have a nuclear, which is firm and stable, but doesn't swing. And on the other side, you have renewable power. [01:21:22] Yvonne Chan: Which is the cookie part then? The brown part is the firm part? [01:21:25] Speaker 17: The two cookies, right? Two hard surfaces. So you have one side, a nuclear, which is, let's say, firm, but doesn't swing, doesn't load follow. And then on the other hand, you have renewables, which is highly intermittent. And to design a stable grid and to make this Oreo cookie, you need the cream in between to hold the whole cookie together. And the magic to me, the magic lies in the cream. The cream can be a mix of various different things. It can be gas, it can be batteries, and it can be a demand response. I would say that if a data center, if the load is not critical, not critical compute, then they should trip off that load, right? Instead of surging in terms of the demand. So all that pieces have to come together in order to hold that cookie together. [01:22:15] Yvonne Chan: I like that. An Oreo cookie as an optimal grid infrastructure. I will not forget that. So easy to remember, right? Thank you, Yonghui. Do you have another cookie analogy, Kaz? I apologize. I don't have a cookie. That's a great one. Or cake, you know, or chocolate. Because I wanted to ask you whether from the discussion today, does this strengthen the case for firm power? Or would you still swing to the notion that we need a more diversified and integrated system, Kaz? [01:22:44] Speaker 16: I think, again, back to your AI data center demand, that's creating new types of demand as well, right? And what we see is definitely that kind of diversified integrated solution, but firm power has a role to play. In a way, the AI data center demand is raising the bar for us in terms of how fast you need, how reliable, and then quality of the power supply required in a place. And then that's why many of the discussion now moving to kind of behind-the-meter approach, where some people are providing them themselves. But in a way, we see these as an early indication of the market need. And ultimately, what we require is a resilient grid. Because once you have a resilient grid, which can support these pieces, then we can cater for various demands and so on. So that's why we believe that grid investment is very important as we talk about all these things. The investment into the grid, making sure the resilient grid supports this. So, sorry, I don't have a cookie, but... [01:23:39] Yvonne Chan: You know, you need a resilient grid that is as strong as that Oreo cookie, isn't it? Yeah, so it's clear that my panelists have shown that the option is not an either/or. Regardless of whatever technology combination or energy combination each market chooses, they need a grid that remains affordable, flexible, and reliable, even as demand continues to grow. So, let's give a round of applause, please, for Kaz, Dr. Yu, and Yonghui. Thank you for those wonderful analogies today. Please remain seated. As a token of appreciation for all our guests who have spoken on stage, DNV will be making a donation in your name to plant 61 trees in recognition of Singapore's 61st birthday. So, thank you once again to all our speakers for contributing your time and insights with us. May I invite you to just remain on stage for a short while while I invite Sverra Elvik to join me on stage. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I have here with me Sverra Elvik, who has been in charge of the energy transition outlook for the past 10 years. Sverra, we've had two very robust panel discussions. Any reflections on the insights shed from our panelists today? Thank you. [01:25:18] Speaker 19: And if you look at the discussions today, they've been quite different from what we would have had 10 years ago. We talked about resilience and energy security. We talk about type of technologies like SMRs and AI that we didn't mention. We talk about political tension and strategic supremacy of rare earths. And then there are other things that has not changed. We still talk of the need for stable regulatory environment. We talk of the pace of the technology development. And we talk of the economics of the transition. And I think what we've heard today is echoing a lot of the findings that Ditlev showed us and from our report. There is optimism. There is some more realism in the discussions. But it's very much moving forward and putting it also now in the context of Singapore and Southeast Asia. [01:26:14] Yvonne Chan: I like that. Optimism, realism, the context of moving forward. Now, we started this program today listening to some young voices who have acknowledged that we are moving away from climate goals. But they also recognize the need to pursue energy security. So if you looked at how the energy transition is evolving, what kind of world do you think we're building for the next generation? [01:26:36] Speaker 19: The next generation has reasons to be concerned as they are sort of the one living with the consequences of our actions or in actions. And on the one side, there are severe consequences of climate change and the weather related events upon us already. And we cannot fool them and say that this will just ease off. In fact, it will worsen. So that's the reason for concern. The reason for optimism is that we are at a much better state than we were 10 years ago, especially when it comes to technology. The advances we have had in storage, in solar and in cost development are astonishing. And today we have a competitive alternative in most sectors to the fossil fuel driven transition. So it's very important. And I think this echoing, I mean, the purpose of energy transition outlook for the last 10 years has been to provide our customers with decision-making capabilities or understanding so that they take the decision that ultimately will help both themselves and the society to move into a slowly, but certainly a net zero world. [01:27:57] Yvonne Chan: Thank you. Thank you, Savera. I think it's very clear that across all the conversations today, we see that the energy transition will not be defined by one technology or one pathway, but by how intelligently we continue to manage the ambition, the resilience and the realities of each market. So we'd like to thank everyone here in Singapore for watching and for those of you tuning in online. You can download the DNV energy transition report for free from DNV's website. My name is Yvonne. It's been a pleasure to be your moderator. Thank you and goodbye. and goodbye. [01:29:03] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.