So, yeah, why do we do airborne wind energy? I think most of us are here to make an impact, an impact on, first of all, the energy mix, and then through that, eventually, an impact on climate.

Well, to make an impact, we have to be somehow attractive as an option next to, for example, the wind turbines. And, yeah, there are some advantages to having wind energy, clearly. We are very compact, and this allows us to have the untapped to go to places

where conventional wind can go with more difficulty, remote places onshore or floating offshore. We also have the promise of having a very low carbon footprint. We use less materials. And, again, this advantage is more pronounced

for the floating offshore, where we would not need the gigantic floaters, as we've seen this morning. So, actually, these things will make an impact only if you install many, many gigawatts of power.

And for the third time, for offshore floating, there is a lot of capacity to do such installation, and this is why we, as Empix Power, believe that's where we should go to. That's our eventual goal. But being easier to install, being cleaner, doesn't necessarily, yeah, is not necessarily

enough for success. You also need to be somehow cheaper, or at least not more expensive than the alternative. So, yeah, how do we go about assessing the cost of our system? So this is actually a picture from a project called CFARM, where we actually started to get that assessment.

Together with the Energy Center in the Netherlands, ECN, we developed the cost model for the offshore operations and validated it, also the performance and the launch of land performance on a floating offshore platform.

And together with Marin and Motion, we developed and validated the performance of a floater system. Using that as a starting point, we could then move on with a number of costs and LCOE. We could then use extrapolations,

based on assumptions, based on further modeling and performance simulation to see what would happen if we scale up the system, if we increase the wing area. And you see different curves for different sizes

of generators that we would install under aircraft of a given wing area. Well, for reference, I indicate here that these are just, as I said, based on assumptions, but for reference here, you see in this blue shade, more or less target pricing of energy

seems to be really competitive. And if we look at offshore floating conventional, they at the moment heavily rely on subsidies to scale themselves, and these are more or less the subsidy levels we can expect to get. So somewhere in that region, that's where the conventional floating is at the moment,

and they're going steep down, and we'll have to go steep down as well, which means we have to scale up to bigger areas and the bigger generators. Now, how do we select the systems? Well, first you have to realize that these curves are based on many assumptions,

and the bigger the aircraft, the bigger the assumptions, the bigger the development costs, the bigger the unknowns, actually. So it might well be that the curve looks like the orange bottom one, or even more likely, like the orange top one, price going actually up when we go to really big aircraft.

So if you want, for example, a two-megawatt generator, you would probably try to go as low as possible where the uncertainties are least, and the development costs and capital expenses are minimal, so you might go there. Now, if you do that, you see there's a big opportunity

to go to lower energy prices by just putting a bigger generator underneath that same aircraft. Now, if you do that, there actually is some potential to improve because there's significant gain to be gotten from going a little bit bigger

and further lowering the R-suite, and we can do that again, up to five megawatt. So what we are seeing is a pretty proportional behavior of scaling up systems, wind area, power, attention, and all that whole scale, a pretty proportional

if you want to have good systems. So all of these are relatively similar capacity factors. You see these systems from the previous slide, and as you recall from that slide, there was not much to gain on LCV, but there is still a lot to gain from in terms of capacity factor.

So making these systems bigger doesn't necessarily decrease the cost of energy but even get a little bit more expensive every kilowatt hour, but we generate more of it. We have a higher capacity factor. We can sell more energy. So if you look at profit,

that actually could be the more optimal system. Here is an example where there's more clear. These are power curves, wind speed here, power production on the vertical, and the purple line is 150 square meters of aircraft, and it's half the three megawatts.

It's a three megawatt generator at the bottom. Now if you make that about 50% bigger, then our curve moves quite significantly into a attractive direction because here are the most common winds. So that's where you generate more power. Also, at these lower winds, energy price is higher.

So we make more profit. So eventually, having such a system, 250 square meters for a three megawatt generator looks like a really attractive option. Yeah, and that's what we call 85. And for us, that is our workforce eventually

that can cover many business cases. So we can do three megawatts with a very high capacity factor, like 60%, or a five megawatt with a very low LCOE, very competitive LCOE level. So going bigger, in steps of about 50%,

that seems to be, 50% increase in wind area seems to be the right thing to do when you increase your system. Going bigger, as I said before, comes with a lot of assumptions. So we cannot really say that we can't build this 85 right now.

These assumptions, we treat them as requirements, as design requirements. And that is design requirements has to be at three races somehow. And that we do with innovation projects. And the idea is that, I think how our wind energy will play out in the future

in terms of upscaling, is that every time we scale up, we will reach something that's a very well known scaling of mass, very poor scaling of mass with wind area is one of these limits. And every time you'll need some innovation to be able to go to the next 50% of size increase.

I'm more comfortable right now with 150 square meters than 250 square meters. But eventually we will resolve these issues. There will always be innovation. There will always be new materials, new solutions, new aircraft layouts to keep going bigger and bigger. And that's eventually what we want.

Because that's what conventional wind is doing. We are right now building wind turbines like this. That's just gigantic. And they do this fast. So if you want to build such wind turbines,

you need a lot of infrastructure. There is a lot of development cost. Vegetable will be a high capital expenditure for installing your first system and there are a lot of challenges and risks to be dealt with. Just to give you an idea,

our wing for a 12 megawatt thermal wind energy system would be more or less this size. And this is the generator that goes with this.

It's big. And to build something this big, you need a strategic partner. A development company like ourselves in the morning explained how we have become actually a development company. Very good at developing new prototypes and certifying them. But we cannot mass produce

or even build such a big system ourselves. So we need a strategic partner. We need the supply chain behind it. Now to convince a strategic partner to join such a massive project with such uncertainties, obviously you need to come up with a solution,

commercially viable solution for the shorter term. And yeah, what should that be? I think one option is to go the way that power has gone and go for, yeah, development of off-grid systems of say 100 kilowatts, 150 kilowatts. And that's a totally, I think, viable business concept.

That's one direction you can go. And for us, the rationale has been, if we do that, that would really take a lot of focus towards getting that to work in a niche market. Eventually you will not be able to sell a very large number of systems,

not thousands and thousands. And you still have to go 10 or 20 or 30 times bigger. So there's a lot of, it will be very difficult to generate all the money needed to build a big system. So you still have completely different architecture systems. This is from power always being rational.

We want to go to this, to make that impact. So the alternative would be to try to think, what is the smallest utility scale solution that actually makes commercial sense? And then, yeah, we're actually thinking

of the re-powering market. And we could also think of the app of remote control. If you look at the re-powering market, that is mostly at the moment, it's about offshore parks with wind turbines and grid connections of about two, three or four megawatts

per wind turbine. And you see here again, wind area is for the re-powering market. And how else does the curve look like? There you see the L2E. And we see again in blue, the target pricing level.

And you see the curves for two, three and four megawatts. Every point, every dot there is an optimum, an optimized solution with optimum cable tension. And you see these gray boxes? What do they indicate? They indicate the range of wind area where it's sensible to develop that system.

If you want to have a two megawatt system, you don't want to make it too big because there's more risk than little gain. If we make it too small, the L3 will go up too much, it becomes unattractive. So if you look at the two, three and four, you see there's quite an overlap.

And in this range of wind area, 150, 170 square meters, we can actually service the whole re-powering market with a single aircraft. You don't have to redevelop every time the aircraft. There's one aircraft and that services all. And if you put that aircraft in a remote onshore place, it happens to have a very high capacity factor

of 60 plus percent if you put a generator like one or one on, maybe one hundred meters. So that could be a good direction for us. Still, it's a very big aircraft. It's a lot bigger than the MP3. That we are building right now.

How can we make that manageable, such a development? How can we make the outcome of this development predictable? So this is where we have to go. Some massive aircraft of AP-4 covering this whole range of generators. And our approach has been, with our small AP-2 aircraft,

we get flight operations already to, let's say, a commercial level. We try to do it already compliant with future, one minute, two minutes? With future regulations

and also to develop already the algorithms that will eventually be in AP-4. And it will first be flown also in AP-3, which is sort of explained. This is a demonstrator for safety, autonomy, and scalability. So we try to have an architecture that's compliant to all future safety requirements.

It's single point failure tolerant. And the architecture bit can scale up to commercial size, like the launch environment. And then it's fully autonomous in all weather conditions. But not everything scales so nicely, so we will need to look at the things

that are difficult to scale. And for that, we need some additional activities. So if we want to start, seriously, AP-4 activity, and want to have that planable and with a predictable outcome, we'll have to have an activity like this. And on top of that,

have a baseline starting point of our concepts. And we can only do that if we really understand all the assumptions in these LCP curves that I just showed you, and treat them as requirements, and try to meet those requirements. Not only LCP, but also scalability issues.

So AP-3 is actually an activity that really is trying to achieve that. But here you see some other potential issues that we're trying to tackle. Upscaling drive trains and winches, and rotating things in general comes with massive increase in inertia.

Well, we have a very dynamic system. Upscaling the tether, as you will see in the post presentation, what does that do? That the heat in the tether cannot get out of it so much, so easily anymore, so the lifetime goes down. Upscaling the aircraft, mass and inertia will increase.

How to produce carbon structures, cheaply, affordably, and light, taking into account the fatigue, the compression after impact of the sun, damage in your carbon, and how to deal with offshore operations. These are all things that we're now looking at

with different activities. Here is one of them, called AKA, where we're actually optimizing the layout of the aircraft, and using a combination of tools we've developed, and we optimized also the wing profile

for not only maximum lift, but taking into account hinge moment, structural mass, et cetera. Another activity we do actually with DSM, that is on trying to test tethers, but real commercial utility scale performance,

where high speeds, 10 meters per second, reloads, very high tensions, hundreds of kilometers. So, to conclude, what we believe we have to do next, if we want to enable the market entry of such a utility scale to have a mid-energy system,

what are the characteristics of such a project? The architects should already fully cover that utility scale. We need to clear business case, otherwise it will not take off. The LCOE should be attractive, but we will have to use substitute schemes

to make that happen, most likely. We believe the K-backs of the system itself should be promising to make it extra attractive and to give confidence of the future, reduction in LCOE. There has to be potential economy of scale, and by having one system that covers all our business cases,

we believe that that helps that development, making it as small as possible, and also start with small generators to help limit the development cost. And finally, you've seen, starting now at this moment, we're working on all the capabilities to be with our assumptions.