Episode Transcript
[00:00:10] Speaker A: Welcome to the EU Energy Projects Podcast, a podcast series from Enlida and France focusing on the clean energy transition for the European Union and the EU Commission funded energy projects that will help us achieve it. My name is Aretid Daradimu. I. I am the editor of the EU Energy Projects Podcast and your host.
In this episode of the EU Energy Projects podcast I am joined by Dr. Susanne Nies, a leading voice in European energy policy.
Together we are going to explore how EU Commission strategies and funded projects drive climate neutrality, foster new technologies and materials and shape a resilient sustainable energy future.
Susanna, thank you so much for being here with me today. And I will go directly to my first question because you've worked at the crossroads of policy, research and industry and you are the best person to tell us how would you describe the European Commission's role in steering the energy transition towards climate neutrality?
[00:01:20] Speaker B: Thanks a lot are for having me. And I think this is a very important question. When we look back to say the early days of the climate discussion, meaning Johannesburg summit, et cetera, it was coinciding with liberalization in Europe. We had the first energy package and the objective was clearly have a market on what was before stage one ministry oriented energy setting, but very fast. I would say in the second and especially in the third package there was an understanding that climate was one of in this famous European triangle that sustainability needed to be added. It started maybe with more environmental issues, but this climate discussion ETS with the third package started at that point. I would say there was a culminating point not in the clean energy package, that was an electricity package, but very much in the Green Deal. This is really revolution and surprising also because Ursula von der Leyen and Mr. Timmerman SPD Social Democrats. Social Democrats and Ursula von der Leyen Conservative Party, not Greens they have been putting in place the Green Deal as an overarching framework for the transition. I think this is unheard of and now we need to explore what are the next chapters on this journey. But having put in place the Green Deal, having defended the Green Deal throughout the Ukraine invasion by Russia is quite impressive if the repower eu. Therefore I would clearly say if I would give a mark to the European Commission for driving the agenda on climate change and energy transition, I would clearly give them for everything since Green Deal 8 out of 10 points.
[00:03:05] Speaker A: Oh wow, that is. That is quite a high number. And so is it safe to assume that you do believe that speaking of the Green Deal, the current commission policies are aligning quite well with the realities of energy markets and Technology deployment or there we need a little bit more work.
[00:03:26] Speaker B: I think there is. We need a little bit more work. We are in a difficult situation today when we look at the very big macro political picture. We are in situations of realpolitik, of war. Unfortunately, we are in a situation in Europe of recession, no growth, but at once exploding social system costs. So they are very big challenges and they have clearly put the energy transition and climate agenda a little bit more on the back burn. I mean, you look at let's say the 90% objective climate emission reductions for 2040 as Commission proposed, this is still the world of green deal.
But we see at once some alarming signs. For example, this meeting Trump Oslo, von der Leyen in Scotland, where Ousef van der Leyenko confirmed that we would buy in the next three years $750 billion fossil fuels from the US means that first of all is impossible because commission cannot order this. But it's just contradictory with this transition agenda. Therefore, I think we are in a very difficult time. And there is some alarming signs also for a little bit getting away from the set objectives.
[00:04:39] Speaker A: Yes, so we see that clearly in the politics of the Union and it is alarming, as you said. But it seems that the European Commission at least is still strong in its position.
And what I see that I also like is that utilities are quite strong in this position's position and that could potentially help because the big utilities have connections with political parties and they help informing an educated opinion, let's say, on the green deal.
[00:05:10] Speaker B: Yeah, maybe I would say yes and no to, to this. I totally agree that the big players, like, let's say enel e on they are playing their role. EDP in Portugal and many others. Yeah, they're playing their role. They needed certainty, they got certainty on targets, on ETFs, on all these things and built a lot of especially renewables, more grids and good discussion. Yeah, but at once we see today I can talk now about my country, Germany. So there is a kind of return of the long bridge gas discussion where we think, okay, why not more gas? You know, and this is like a little bit alarming. And I think that there's also many profits have been made by the big oil and gas players during or since the Ukraine war. Let's not forget this. And there is also interest, oh, why not lagging a little bit longer? Why not taking a little bit longer time? So there's now a certain desire. Let's go slower. We also should mention that solar especially is so cheap and there was so much deployment that it is difficult to manage. For example, my country, 400 gigawatt of solar should be built in Germany, but who would consume this given that in all neighboring countries we have similar deployments of solar energy and the grids and all the infrastructure and the consumption also is not there to match such needs. So I would say it's been yes and no on the company side to, to support the the move.
[00:06:32] Speaker A: But would it be that bad if we went a little bit slower? Given the fact that everybody around us, and I'm talking China, I'm talking America with the famous drill baby drill of President Trump, et cetera, are going slower.
[00:06:47] Speaker B: And slower, I think it would be a disaster. And also China, what I hear from China, in terms of pollution, there's a lot of electrification going on in China. The situation in cities has improved a lot. Electric cars are used. The quote of electric cars or electric mobility is quite low in Europe still. And I think we just need to think about the future generations. We all see the impact of climate change. There's also of course huge opportunities in terms of industrial growth. So I do think that there's a risk for those new industries that were created when say there was a green deal. Boom. If now we go slower. You also support the ones that you wanted to a little bit phase out. So I think if it's about one month, it's always no problem. But if it's about a change of direction, it should be a no go and you need to be responsible with respect to future generations. When you look at some other events recently on environment, let's say the plastic summit that failed. So it is quite some alarming signs of. It's not the most important topic somehow. Yeah, which it is, which it should be. And therefore I think we clearly need to keep momentum and it is much easier to keep momentum now than to derail it because like once commission has adopted something, once all member states have started to implement it, it's not easy to derail. But if you derail it on purpose, it's also not easy to get it back. So I think we need to be very responsible in this sense.
[00:08:15] Speaker A: And do you think that EU funding or EU funded programs like Horizon Europe and Innovation Fund Life, et cetera, which channel billions into energy and climate projects, I mean recently it was announced another half a billion euros to, to go to one of this funding programs. So from your expertise, what impact have these programs and the projects that they're funding on accelerating the energy transition?
[00:08:42] Speaker B: I would say they had a huge impact I mean, you look at the numbers, say Horizon Europe is nearly 100 billion. And there's other programs like Life.
The priorities are well aligned with the EU energy direction. I would say green digital transitions, renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy system integration, decarbonization of transport and things like that. So I would say these programs are very important also because they cluster member states together.
What. What would I mention? Maybe as projects that have been successful. One thing we all immediately think about when we think about energy and research is this PRIMES model by capos.
So this National Technical University essence supported by commission because they desperately wanted some sort of modeling. And then the primes became in the end, which is funny, nearly a problem because it became a monopoly in its own right. And there was a tentative to overcome this. That's clearly a success story. And I think it's very hard to say which are exactly the biggest successes, but I can just name some of those.
And there's so many areas to investigate that you cannot really say this is the one, like maybe easier to say this for Capros Kapros is the kind of Airbus of the energy research, like this Airbus project that's always mentioned. Yeah. So if I should mention some, I would for example mention this osmosis project, which is kind of close to what I'm doing, is this optimal mix of flexibilities for the European power system, which is a very important topic. But we also have projects like the Otena CO2 battery project, that is very important.
We have Vivaldi project which is developing biotechnological solutions for industrial off gas. And then also these strategic technology platforms, I think they have been quite important as well. The question is always what is important? And when you go through the jungle of all these new projects on research and innovation, you can get easily lost and think, oh my God, all these things, is it all important? Should you go more for the TIL advanced implementation projects? Yes. So there's also these European strategic technology platforms like Eclipse Net, like for wind, like for solar. And I really like those platforms. Was myself actively involved. Why are they important?
It is because those platforms bring stakeholders from the experts, from the companies, from the research institutes, from the governments together to discuss what is important. Because there is no means, no one should pick the winners. You do not know is it wave energy, is it hydrogen or something? But you get a better understanding what's important in bringing stakeholders.
And I think this is the most important maybe message also on the future of research, politics, policies and programs in Europe, you need to firstly be transparent. You need to have platforms where project results can be seen, where data are accessible for the stakeholders and you need to bring those stakeholders together precisely like in these platforms to understand from evil. So people are not investing if it doesn't make sense if you go for til advanced projects and people are not betting on projects if they will never have a chance Also and I think it's important to get these feedback through the stakeholder community to make the right choices on framing the research program.
[00:12:24] Speaker A: Exactly. And here comes another question about how the EU balances two seemingly different options or points in the projects. One is funding the fundamental research so basically new materials, next generation storage, etc. And on the other hand the applied part of of a project so near market solutions like grids, renewables, integrations, etc. How easy or difficult this balance is. And do you think that the European Commission and the projects themselves, because it's not only the Commission are doing okay on this one or they need some help.
[00:13:03] Speaker B: I think this is a very difficult and very important question at once. If you ask from the end what do you want to achieve with this? Because you're not doing this to make some researchers happy. You're funding projects because you want to achieve something. So what are the burning questions of our time in this case on energy and climate.
And clearly we are in a time of burning fire of challenges that require a lot of implementation of very advanced and very mature technologies like don't know, hydrogen. I think you don't need to research so super much on this, but you should possibly just deploy it and there's lots of things there. When I worked in the flexible AC transmission system, you wise there's a lot of grid technologies that are simply not deployed and never trialed and never piloted. There needs to be a huge emphasis the things are on the shelf and I think there should be a huge priority on deploying what's on the shelf and doing pilots and also doing those pilots. Typically we know that these institutions mature, become a little victim of inertia and are not very active anymore when you have bigger players. But the startups are quite agile. So you would need to find also a base of giving those startups the opportunity with a very bureaucratic approach to trial out some smaller things and take the risk that there will be no perfect result, but that if there's perfect result, everyone will win from this. I think this is very important on the high, let's say on the TRL789 type things.
Now on the fundamental research, I also strongly believe you should never Stop doing fundamental research. Because when we see the challenges of the last years, no one expected any of those.
So we didn't expect Corona to come this Covid crisis. We also didn't expect the Russia, Ukraine war to come. I think we also didn't expect that AI would play such a role. No one expected any of these. We are all thinking more in a kind of continuous linear manner and therefore exploring, for example, fusion.
Because I think it's clear today already that we will not make it for 2050. We will not get into climate neutrality while we want it. So there is a need to get carbon out of the atmosphere at some point. Yeah. And fusion could be possibly a solution for this. And for that reason don't get out of fundamental research because this is just like. It would be like cutting away a lack or something.
[00:15:35] Speaker A: Absolutely. But I would like to go a little bit back to technologies again and ask you if there is one or two of the emerging technologies, be that hydrogen, advanced storage, digital grids, digital twins, whatever that hold the greatest promise for reaching climate neutrality, or we need a little bit of everything.
[00:15:58] Speaker B: Yes, this is a very, very good question also. So what are the technologies you mentioned? A couple of them again. Hydrogen is for me more a case of cost than a case of research. Today.
Electrolysis works, but it's still a lot of question marks on also transport, on infrastructure. Even still the cost is to my understanding, €180 megawatt hour, while our current costs are somewhere between 10, 20 and 40 or something. Yeah, it's just expensive.
You need to do a lot on those. Yeah, but I think that the important things that need to be done is at once in storage. We need to solve this solar problem, because solar, it's great that it's cheap, but it's not sold. And we will find these massive curtailments that we see today. We need to benefit from the cheap solar and we need a lot of electricity. When you look what the consumption of electricity of every PT check is. Amazing. Yeah, this needs to be curtailed. I do think that we have been tailing all over the place on energy efficiency and maybe we haven't been addressing this correctly. Example also mobility. Why is private transport privilege to public transport while so many people want good public transport and stuff like that? So I think this energy efficiency is clearly one storage, as I mentioned, and on the energy system I see a lot of solutions being there. I think something like a better Arctic architecture, for example, having some sort of super grid. This is an old idea, HVDC overlay Grid, which could also help transport electricity, which is the name of the game anyhow, because in the end electricity will be maybe 60% of the energy mix. So, so, so this, these are the kind of things that I would definitely mention as, as, as important to do.
[00:17:47] Speaker A: All these things, however, to, to, to go forward in the technologies that we need, in everything. We need new materials. And how do you see the role of EU research in pushing these innovations forward? Also, given the fact that new materials need new sources and raw materials that we don't have that many in Europe, unless I'm mistaken, of course.
[00:18:12] Speaker B: Yeah, but I think not all new materials are needing new resources yet. There's a lot of material research that would lead to less consumption of material. I give you the example of superconductors that could diminish the size of electricity grids tremendously.
Or let's say in the world of fusion, this challenge of how can you have materials that resist such heat? By the way, that's the same problem with superconductors because no one can really manage today the heat resulting from the use of superconductors. So I clearly think you take the example of solar. Again, there's now these tandem cells, but also in my Central Berlin research, we are working on perovskite solar cells, which is a different type. They are highly efficient solar cells and it's abundantly available. Perovskite is everywhere. So there is new ways that are not necessarily requiring a more rare earth, let's say, but in the opposite. They would just take rare earth.
[00:19:10] Speaker A: So basically we just need to be a little bit smart about it and choose the things that we can do and we can do well, again, come.
[00:19:17] Speaker B: From the answer to the question I think it's important to read. What do you need? What do we need for this energy transition? What kind of things do we need and where can we find it? If it's about implementation and then where could be the future needs also in other areas, biotechnology and others. And what kind of materials would we need for those? I think that it should be kind of related to our needs, even for fundamental research.
[00:19:44] Speaker A: I want to go back a little bit to that question that we discussed about the balance between research and market. And I would like to ask you how effective are current EU policies? Because I would like us to discuss a little bit of regulation, a little bit of policies in ensuring that research outcomes. What happens in the lab basically moves beyond exactly that, the lab and the pilots into the real world, into real world deployment.
[00:20:15] Speaker B: This is a very, very important topic. This I think there is not enough deployment. Yeah, it's also, I think sometimes also there's a kind of lack of coordination of national and EU programs. There's a lot of things trialed and done, but sometimes it's the end of the story is the end of the project.
And while it should be taken up by industry, while the EU programs are always keen on having industry players on board, which is good, but it's not always that the industry players are taking it up and deploying it after.
So depending on the area we are talking about, we need to also look into what is the regulatory setting. So there should be some anticipation. Okay. If it worked, how would it be deployed? And it's about a market that needs it. Yes, but it's also about regulation in my area, in the electricity grids, for example. Yeah. It's simply that the regulatory setting for innovative technologies allows the industry not to use it. They can simply continue as before, even if results are obvious. And this should not be the case. There should be some really obligation. So it's for example, in Germany in electricity innovation and grids is called a NOVA principle, new solutions and only then build more grid, these kind of things. But it's not really, it's not really empowered, it's not really mandatory. And I think therefore we need to look into the regulatory frameworks or into the boundary conditions for. Okay, let's just assume this pilot goes successful. How could it then be where could it fail? Where could it fail or how could it flourish? And I totally agree. I think this is maybe the most important area of EU and also national research policies. How to avoid that is simply like stuck in a. In an archive. In the end.
[00:22:06] Speaker A: And speaking of collaborations and connections between the theoretical and the praxis, I would like to bring into the table also the cross border collaboration, because the EU Commission is stressing that and how important it is quite often and I would like, let's say, to have a positive discussion about it.
Could you give us an example where EU level coordination made a decisive difference in an energy or climate project? Like something positive?
[00:22:38] Speaker B: Yes, absolutely. For example, I give you the example of these projects of common interest, PCIs. Yeah. And so there's funding for PCIs and the initial PCIs for infrastructure in energy, they were only about building more grids. Yeah. More cross border lines and stuff. Yeah. But then in the European Commission and also thanks to such very innovative people like Katarina Sikov Magni, this was changed and this was changed for also allowing for smart grid projects. And I recall the project, including the Portuguese EVP Spain and another project with Italy where simply such new solutions were tried. Hey, how could this work? Cross border. Yeah, Smart grid project. And clearly it was, it has unleashed the potential in the national context because it was trialed and it wouldn't have been done by a national player alone at least maybe five years from today, but it has been extremely successful.
[00:23:36] Speaker A: Speaking of the technologies, like jumping back a little bit to that, do you think that the EU regulatory framework is flexible enough to keep pace with rapid technological innovation? And where could it improve?
[00:23:49] Speaker B: Again, as I mentioned before, with these platforms no one can know everything.
Like every one of us, you and myself, we are like exposed to news and then wow, this is great. Why don't I go for this? So it's bit of also passion or even randomly sometimes that we have preferences. And the same goes for European Commission. And that's why you can reduce the randomness of preferences in including as much as possible decision makers like industry guys from let's say Hitachi, from EON, from INE, from Communal Enterprises, the NGOs like Greenpeace and others like those that work on, on the government side or international organization, iea, in trying to reduce randomness and compare the sheet. I also very much like this World Energy Council always the what are the most important topics in energy? Every year they publish their reports that don't allow decision makers to sleep. Five most important and what are the five that keep them busy? And when you look at this, I always look at this, you also see trends. And using such results helps you identify what's important. I think it's clear that Commission and European decision makers need to refrain from picking winners. It's very clear. But they also need to refrain from going for inflation, where everything, electricity as much as fusion is included in the bucket. Because then you have no priority. And that's why aligning priorities also with the eu, political priorities like BIB is working, they are funding that stuff. That's a priority for European policymakers. I think that's crucial.
[00:25:30] Speaker A: Speaking of politics and with the war in Ukraine and the sifting geopolitics that we're experiencing for the past few years, how has the EU policy adapted to ensure both energy security, which is a very important topic, and decarbonization, which is another very important topic.
[00:25:49] Speaker B: That's a amazing question.
The answer is has not. But it's not that they haven't understood the challenge. I give you some examples. First of all, in Ukraine, it's never happened that the country like everything is Attacked and they still try to combine the grid and try to make things work that they deserve a Nobel Prize for being able to manage. But also like substation protection, we have discussions now on how to protect critical infrastructure in a totally different way. Switzerland has done this in the past, like they had underground 220kv substations. But also honestly because of the weather, because in Switzerland lots of snow. But now we need to think about other types of protection. We have seen the Baltic Sea became a very dangerous place. The synchronization of the Baltics has seen the single line that connects Poland to Lithuania being now constantly protected by troops. Yeah. So this is already a very new reality and I would kind of maybe call this sustainable energy security.
So we have no choice. We should not be naive. We need to protect the infrastructure. Cybersecurity digitalization is a reality that without the war is a challenge for the grids. So I think we will need, we have no choice as to spend a lot of money in the future on energy security.
And so we should push as much as possible sustainability into this. I was personally very happy to see in repower EU which was the reaction of commission to Ukraine for scale invasion by Russia that they said and now we more go for this renewables and all this transition which was amazing. They could have said hey guys, let's have a pause, let's have a break now, we better take some oil, some gas. And no, they did exactly rightly the opposite. And therefore I think the sustainability agenda is there. Maybe since the Draghi report and since Trump drill baby, drill, we see a little bit of, I see the national politics, a little bit of setback on sustainability but you and me and we all are there to keep the flag up and say guys, we are talking here about our kids and our grandchildren.
[00:27:55] Speaker A: Yeah, the Draghi report and also the Draghi discussion, I don't remember in which event, I think it was Reuters or something like that. What he mentioned about the EU not being the power player that we would want to be. It is a slap in the face. In the face. I don't fully agree with him. I'm an optimist. I want to believe that we will have a saying and especially that Ukraine will have a saying for its future. But this remains to to be seen. What I wanted to ask you is about boosting electricity transfers to Ukraine because you have written about this and I wanted to ask you if how can EU funded projects at this point because it is a very important, let's say tool projects are a very important tool. How can they strengthen resilience in the wider European neighborhood? Because yes, Ukraine is the main problem, let's say now what's happening. But there are other countries that might face it up.
[00:28:51] Speaker B: This is a very good point and I will say there is a lot of opportunities that should be taken greatly. There is what's called early accession.
An early accession means that before becoming a member of the EU member, a candidate country can already be part of some programs. And this is the case for the research programs. So Ukraine is already part of those research programs.
But we are not only talking here about Ukraine. The 2030 PBC Big Bang Enlargement would include the western Balkans, Moldova and it is like at the end of the white spot spots that we have currently on the energy map with these countries not being part of the EU and what needs to happen to really integrate them Now I'm talking now only about energy.
I'm starting with energy is this market coupling. And I see in My Previous Employer N3 they are very busy in finalizing their own market coupling project, let's say the core project. It's difficult, there is a lot of challenges and they might lose sight and not have the right or not have enough staff also to do the market coupling with the future member states. So therefore there is a need to push for this and there are many challenges. We are just finalizing a study on market coupling. This is the guarantee also for cross border trade, peace, exchange, security of supply, you name it. But that is a clear priority market coupling. There's other options and like Ukraine now there's an opportunity, sadly spoken in the war in that sense that the aging of the energy system will be dramatic. If you operate something in a stop and go mode, it will be just aging 20 times faster.
So you need to rebuild, replace, trial, do new things. And one thing that comes to my mind is to use the like 110kV distribution grid. Even also for cross border transfers of let's say smaller solar, for more decentralized cross border which is not existing today. It's not even allowed. You cannot have cross border trade with distribution system operators. But why should you not have it? Yeah, means let's why, why shouldn't it exist? These are little opportunities on the climate side. Of course all these countries are subject to C1, the carbon border adjustment mechanism that comes in in January 26th.
And of course the the end of this CBOM story is ets. Once they are members of eu, once they are part of ets, we don't need CBOM anymore. And that's something we also need to have in mind. There should be one decarbonization strategy, including this full block. And yes, there are plenty of opportunities in terms of research and I would say also even in the fundamental research again Ukraine, Kharkiv Landau means all these physics guys, they are not there anymore. Yes, it is a long tradition, is a great curiosity, very digitalized country and much cheaper to do big research projects than other countries. In the eu, salaries are lower and things. So once hopefully the war comes to an end, there are also opportunities or even solar factories and things that we have lost in Europe.
[00:31:58] Speaker A: Actually this is a topic that I would love to pick up again and have perhaps a full discussion on that because as you were speaking, a thousand questions came to my mind that I will not ask you now. Of course, but yeah, maybe this is. This would be a welcoming opportunity for a sequel to our discussion. For now I would like you to look a little bit ahead in the future, 2030, 2050 and tell me what breakthroughs, if any, in EU backed science and technology do you think will be remembered as game changers for climate neutrality?
[00:32:33] Speaker B: What are the breakthroughs? I do think that the way we are modeling the power system or the energy system needs to change and there's lots of opportunity. I give you the example like World Health Organization, at some point they use statistical data how many people have a flu in countries and what is all into big databases and stuff. And at some point they started to look how many people Google flew and they came to an algorithm understanding. Okay, what's the match between those statistical data and those people googling flu and came to an algorithm that was sufficiently reliable to come to new ways of data collection. I think that this is one aspect, but the other aspect of this modeling of probable futures includes also AI. This is the big story that is clearly on everyone mindset today. And we all feel it, see it and benefit from it already.
But you also need to do it with moderation and with, let's say oversight. So I believe that AI will play a fundamental role in the climate neutrality. I do believe that the, this energy system design is simply not where it should be. It's like, you know, you want to put stuff in a house that you just bought, there's nothing inside. And then you put 10 bathrooms, you forget the kitchen. Yeah. And you have 15 beds. Yeah. And you have no board and something. So it's this kind of approach because there's one in charge of the bed, is one in charge of the bathroom and one in charge of the cupboard. And this is the kind of thing we still have to overcome. There is no really a common approach to manage also not in Europe, but not even on a national level. I'm quite happy to hear that this CACM2.0, this capacity allocation, this market design in Europe might see a single market operator. I think these kind of institutions are desperately needed to make sure that in the house you have one bathroom, one bedroom and a better mix. You know, this is. This would come to my mind. Those two things are clearly decisive on technologies. I do think that fusion is very important and so we should not be religiously obsessed with this idea of decentralized and renewables only. Let's say I'm a big fan of renewables, but I'm also agnostic. I think it's about energy supply.
So this could play a major role if successful. And I do hope that we really get out of this fossil fuel story as fast as possible and every solution that we find there on getting out of it. I'm not meaning with that TCs because I do believe that's only like window dressing. Yeah. And might be used in a very small proportion. I think that's the name of the game.
[00:35:06] Speaker A: Susanne, as we ending our conversation which by the way was an eye opener for me in many points, I would like to close with a message from you to policymakers, researchers, innovators, because they are our audience working within EU programs that want to make the most impact. What would you tell them?
[00:35:30] Speaker B: I need to think. What would I tell them? I think I have nothing to teach any of those because they are very smart people. When I meet I'm always impressed to listen in. I think it's maybe this having the view on deployment and implementation that needs to be even further sharpened and think about those scenarios. And it's kind of you look back one year your project failed. Why did it fail? You're kind of okay, assuming what are the reasons why it failed in the end and why it stopped and why nothing was implemented and then address the reasons why it could have failed to make sure it's really deployed and implemented. Because in this current time we have so much speed that we need to have, we cannot really afford to do projects. As La Paula.
[00:36:16] Speaker A: I could not agree more. Susanna, thank you very much and I hope you enjoyed our chat as much as I did.
[00:36:22] Speaker B: Thanks so much Arid it was a big pleasure for me.
[00:36:27] Speaker A: You've been listening to the EU Energy Projects podcast, a podcast brought to you by Enlit and France. You can find us on Spotify Spotify, Apple and the enlit world website just hit subscribe and you can access our other episodes too. I'm Aretita Radimo. Thank you for joining us.
