But also the sustainability of that as a price, even within fixed costs in wind, is for me still a little bit untested. So if you think about the big GE machine that's going in the server bank, that's a really big deployment at scale.

I think Mercure is the first site where that was deployed. So I guess my point is, even within fixed costs in conventional, there's a lot of ambition and a lot still to be proved I guess.

And I think the challenge for Yerba Wind is wanting to just be in the same ballpark cost-wise. Unless we say that it's a niche technology and that it's doing something else that fixed costs isn't doing. And then beyond that, what's the sustainability of that? Actually maybe Yerba Wind has some advantages from a systemic cost sustainability. So that's where I'm at at the moment with Yerba Wind.

Which one? Yes, second. It's really interesting that you said that comparing the scaling prices in October and where does Yerba Wind fit in that. So the really important things are, if you're talking about from a research point of view, researching your markets is really, really important.

But then also, interestingly enough, I did a study in where the key price drops in offshore wind have been. And the vast majority of it is in cheaper finance.

So actually in terms of technology development, offshore wind is at the moment grinding to a bit of a halt. In terms of finding and enabling the short technologies that are actually growing in Pakistan. It's been shown that offshore wind is a safe investment and so most of these cost reductions are in finance.

And so demonstrating that Yerba Wind is a safe investment, again, is a key research and key driver. So testing, testing, testing. I know I said that from the offshore renewable energy capital when we have the test facilities.

But you actually have to demonstrate your projects and show that you can deliver at the cost that you take. I think that's a very valid point. We learned that testing is a very important denominator. So the long duration operation, this is one of the key mission targets.

Long run times show potential clients that we can operate. So the one to build on is financing is a big play.

There is ample funding available. So that's why offshore did something. So I think they pushed the limits. The argument normally has been done. People at 50 because maybe it changes the map quite drastically.

Also reaching some technological barriers.

So that's what you need to do something about. So now for the research, what I wanted to add is I had looked into all kinds of different physical ideas how to generate power. What I thought is helpful for research is to really think about what the world is going to bring.

Do you want to play the niche? The niche can be very valuable. I think emergency power can provide solutions. It can be a big niche. It can be profitable. It can help the world. But it's a different need of research. You can't stay with a single unit.

I'm just proving that this one fulfills the need. Or are you a critical enabler for having green energy being a larger portion of this 100% renewable scenario? Writing the application space. Do you want to be able to produce wind power where nobody else can? Maybe because they just cannot operate for technical reasons.

Or they're not allowed to for social reasons. Or maybe that will be cost effective. We discussed that how can a platform already reach the cost you have elsewhere. So if you're playing this game then you may have different research.

I come to an end there because if you want to go for the latter one. Maybe in the game changer that in 2040 you have the oceans full of floating up already. Then you probably all agree it will not be a single unit doing that job. So you will probably have to think about how does my technology fit into the system.

Does it play with different generation mechanisms together? Is it in swarms? What are your limitations there? I think being aware of that before you decide to make design choices. Like generator up or down. Aspect ratios and so on. Maybe a useful thing. I think I haven't seen enough of that system forever.

Absolutely true. Most of the companies try to get their own thing finally. This big picture is really the next step.

I really want to resonate with what Dominic said there. In terms of knowing your goals, knowing your market specific functions and targeting that. In terms of the right research I cannot really judge about that. I really want to warn about two things. You have to go into the air.

You have to show what you can do. You have to be reliable. Absolutely. One thing I keep repeating in Wave Energy is when I hear you have to go to sea because there is so much you can do. So much learning. Please learn and see only what you can only learn and see.

It's probably the same thing with the air. Then in terms of money, that is something to be exploited. The good money is around. The good money is that money that doesn't push you from TRL 2 to 5 to 9. Then looking at how can I fix this thing.

I think those kind of institutions can clearly be persuaded or shown that if you come back with a black and green. Technically the diligence cost you 200k. And it's presented in the right way that you're going to get more money to improve your system to make it reliable. You have so many examples where complete systems fail because a hardware off the shelf hydraulic accumulator rusted under water.

So there are components around testing. Finally, I think it's all about methodology. The problem is tough. So you have to go about it in the right way.

There are very, very many arguments to that. I think there are very many good points to be made. I'd like to add maybe two things to put it in my perspective. The business arguments against the competition are very, very valuable and very important.

Since we are basically competing against something which is very reliable and getting cheaper for various reasons. So I think from the research side, if you want to assess the field's perspective, finding a unique selling point which is identifiable now, beyond the fact that it might be cheaper than a technology which is getting cheaper constantly,

that is very important. So finding that unique selling point in different niches. I think all the three scenarios which you laid out, from the niche to the competing to the enabler, in all of these cases there could be these key enabling things there.

I mean energy has some definitive key advantage beyond just maybe being cheaper. And I think we can do more to identify these and make this very clear. So I think, for example, for the really niche market like powering remote islands or whatever, I think it's very clear. And the more you go towards utility, the more you're just looking at a material technology getting cheaper and cheaper.

And I think there we have to do more and we're trying to do more at least. The other thing, and I think it touches a bit on what Joakim said, is something where maybe I have a different feeling but no good arguments. And that feeling is that I think for F1B we have a special challenge which maybe other industries in that area didn't have.

Because once you see a solar panel working, you know I can put it on every roof and it will work. And once you see a conventional turbine work for an hour, everybody agrees instinctively to say, okay, that will work forever and everywhere. But I think that's different in our case.

And my impression from discussing with people at the European Union, for example, was that there is just an instinctive skepticism against what they're doing. And so you're nodding and then maybe I catch this feeling correctly. And therefore, I think for us, I think it's very important to also think about on the development side

what is the most effective thing that adds complexity obviously because I think all the arguments are very good today. We should focus on building the right system for the task which we're looking at. At the same time, we have to overcome that instinctive or intuitive skepticism.

And for that, we need a system which just runs 24-7 unattended all the time. And we just need to say, here it is. And I think from a development perspective, there might be uses. I don't know if they give you time. But I think it's very important to get the money from the European Union because of them and big time money. And then I think we feel a little different.

Thanks, Philip. Luckily, we have a session here on safety. And I think I welcome everybody to this session because there are tools to assess and quantify safety, even based on data.

Video can be placed all the time in a live stream. So that's what we do there. This is what companies can do. Just adding to that, we have to convince people that it works. We are trying, that was the next step in this working group roadmap to set up milestones

because there were several people telling us you have to come up with a megawatt number of milestones to reach 54-7 to a certain scale. These kinds of milestones we'll try out to identify. And it'll be complex for the consistency and science and so on.

But hopefully we'll get there so that we can create this confidence also towards the rest of us. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Henk Uddin. I'm supporting Power. As to the question of where should we focus, are we small or big,

I've worked in the field of wind energy since 1982. I have seen all companies and bishops institutions stepping right away to three megawatts. Wind energy, the successful companies, have grown from 10 kilowatts, 15 kilowatts, 30 kilowatts, 50 kilowatts, and so on.

Until now, the 12 megawatt prototypes are true. Also, this is a way for industry to make money and then from making money, being able to spend money on R&D.

So the route is to first deploy in areas where the competition is more expensive, making money there, and then evolve, and then at the end, in 20, 30 years, you can beat standard traditional wind energy.

So the focus should be on the small system. Real big ones have proven to fail. So that's my advice. I think in terms of airborne wind energy, it's very hard to get a small system to work.

You have a lot of drag, so people have tended to scale up. But saying that, if anyone wants a small-scale system, they can stick it in a car to charge it up. My question to you is, I came to this point on wind energy, so I'm very interested in your view,

when the funding at the moment is pushed towards your research, and it's pushing the industry forward, and at some points there will be a change. So when we get support mechanisms in place, hopefully we'll be there.

I think when that happened in a way that was possibly too soon, because it was an awful lot of money being thrown at us, it was great from the government's perspective, because all this money was floating in there, and it was magic because wind energy doesn't work, so there's lots of investments in countries. Do you have a view on when this switch from the push of R&D to the pull of support mechanisms

should happen there? It's a big question. First of all, what I would often like to see is, it has to do with this evolutionary approach, or as I've said, sometimes that wind energy needs intelligent design,

the evolution, because solar panels were reliable back in the beginning, but they needed to get cheaper through mass production. So it's a perfect learning curve, for example. Other technologies, you need to go in large. A quarter scale wave energy converter reduces 1 over 128 of the power,

so it just needs to be big. What I think is that the research has to incorporate the views and all the requirements of the system integrators, the utilities, and all the big players very early, and they have to influence the research.

And then I would say it should go quite a long way before you roll out support mechanisms. In wave energy support mechanisms, there were projects in Ireland and others, the machines didn't come out of scratch because everybody was pushing towards, or I need to do this NER 300 funding, or other things, so I would caution that.

And I wonder what, there are two scenarios. Either you do the R&D in the most professional and most effective way, until you're really very good, and then you mature it through, and bring the industry in, the industry secures their own technology,

implementation might be, then competition starts, then it could set on. I also feel like the R&D, maybe that's just an add-on, IP ID should be on by any way. And we see that in wave energy, in wave energy everybody had a different concept,

and everybody was saying minus or icon, confused the investors entirely, depended on different things and so on. We know from conventional rings how terrible it would be if somebody had three bladed up into a patent, and we know the ridiculous scenario of how Intercom couldn't sell the same machine to us because of variable speed.

So I really think that should be different, and we see in wave energy now, we have a next phase that is having a product that can shift, and the developers are very professional, let's say. I'm going to hand out everything, I just keep my trade secret, the super control of this thing. And that would be beautiful, but I'm sorry for taking so long.

Ola, maybe I can quickly say something, for sure. Let me just pick up on what you were saying, confused investors and others, and what kind of wave energy device to take. I think that's maybe an important thing, so something you probably also

are with the end of five megabyte or the other reference treatments and want to look at some. That resonated very well with me because I think it would be good to have some reference, which is comparing maybe research, academia, research labs, where you can, as an industry,

can compare to what you are different with. And even that, how this reference machine should look like, and how to compare, is it power density, is it APs, LCOE, whenever you compare between different devices, like for example access to insurance, versus a couple of different systems

and so on, it would be very relevant. Because it will show kind of the state of the art, it will show where actually our bottlenecks, it will show where maybe R&D is needed by people. You know, some things are better carried out in the companies, some things are very fundamental.

I'd say to that, well, there is a big conflict in investment, if it sees that systems have been opened up, and certainly in my experience, open source was, I thought it was going to be a very much community enabling approach at the start, but having got that network out there,

and the framework for development, I'm very glad that that is opened out as an idea, but yeah, what we're now looking for is what encourages investors, and that's a whole different challenge, and let's see how it goes, please. I think it's very important.

Just speaking, so if I see a very large part that is looking at energy in the past, what's the roadmap to large scale, offshore, air, water and energy? So how far away is a one or two megawatt, air, water and energy and so on? You know, could you throw more resources out,

you know, if an investor's part of the problem with these things, and it's how long does it need to string, and if investors can't see the end of it, you know, you'll see a return, and it could get trapped in a kind of R&D loop. So, you know, if it's three more resources, it could be screened out for us in a case of, there's just certain things you've got to do

that's going to take five years. So, my question is how far away is a large scale, offshore, air, water and energy? I think this is a very good question, and that we are often asked, okay, we just put in more money, and that speeds up the linear process. I think we cannot agree that it's not working like this.

It's a gradual build-up of knowledge, and I see this also at the university, but also at the companies we are working with, there are certain things you cannot examine with much more, because you need to build up knowledge, you need to understand what's happening,

and that just takes a certain amount of time. I think that's my only view on that. So, it will take a certain amount of time. So, what's your... I don't have... I don't want to say this now. I really don't know. I mean, we should see what is actually happening.

We have seen this in the morning, a presentation of my time, very inspiring, but also what can go wrong on that scale, and also what's different. The masses are completely different, the behavior of the system, the dynamics. We now want to pick out of the two dynamic systems,

the learning platform and the airplane system, to bring these together. It's a challenge, even the interaction during operation, because the movement of the toy will influence the flight dynamics of all things. I have a very small point that I wanted to add.

Maybe that's something we're technically thinking about. You know, we're thinking about a roll-out, and we have to be competitive, and of course there are research markets where there are high prices. But, I'm very experienced with energy colleagues and everyone told me, you know, it might also be not just pull aspects, but push elements in terms of...

The whole scenario in terms of material consumption and supply chain for conventional wind might build up in terms of, you know, not enough there. And we live in urgent times. Maybe it's about when is the earliest possible roll-out. You know, maybe governments will recognize that we don't all have to be totally competitive.

I mean, energy is already really deficient. So, maybe the goal should be, we have to roll out, continue to install conventional wind as much as possible. Roll out air-moderating and other sites where conventional just doesn't make sense. Just to increase total installed capacity for decarbonization and situation

in which we are in much faster. So, maybe we should roll out a reliable, a higher LCO than we think we might. Because I wanted to contradict you a little bit when you said earlier that question

if there should be full promises and I said probably there should be. Because I think we don't need some kind of air-moding specific support for a kilowatt hour at one stage. I think it's hard to start working on it because governments have to be convinced to do that and that will take three years

until they have this feeling like that in place. But we have to have the possibility to produce at 10, 12 cents per kilowatt hour into the market. Because we won't be competitive right away at four, six, four, six, or whatever we can call it. So, that's why USA1 and Euro

are still putting together as the companies who try to go before some kind of specific support system. I'd say your question kind of answered itself in part and like you said, how long is a piece of string in order to scale it? If you look at the Talax poster later on, it's going to help answer that question and have short lengths

and compare them to not scale them anymore. So, I think that's very important as we have some reliable way of going forward and I think as you can just come back to what I said before, we need some kind of understanding from the European political side and from other nations probably also that it would be extremely good to send data to that really these kind of selling points

which we can support and we need people to understand that this can work. Maybe on top now to the kind of financing side. So, I mean, I think there's no one from one of the largest startups here but at least my impression for looking at it from the outside was the fact that the financial side

maybe is not kind of overflowing and has led in some times to the fact that maybe development was kind of interrupted or people were kind of too much busy also kind of the creative partners of these startups were too much busy kind of trying to secure funds and so on. And so my impression was that if there was kind of a more reliable roadmap

in the sense as Christian said it, then that would make it easier to attract investors and that would make it for the startups possible to work much more continuously and while I completely agree with Roland that everybody has to make these experiences and I think Charlotte has of course also made a very nice effort to tell us also the internal experiences everybody has to go through them in some sense

done quicker or slower but if you work continuously that works much faster than if you always interrupted and so on. Maybe some of the startups can convey to that, I don't know. And therefore I think coming to kind of calm waters with more or less the wind in some sense that would be very important.

That's my impression for looking at it from the outside. Yeah, I think it's a challenge for all of us to bring the message to politicians like any investors Why? They don't care for energy. Traditional energy isn't reliable, it's cheap enough.

It's cheaper than gas or coal. So the surplus of oil is very cheap. So why in our technology? The answer is that wind and solar are very limited while airborne wind energy at high altitude

is much more reliable from the wind's perspective so also from the outer perspective. It's easy to design systems which have 80% capacity or even higher depending on the global wind version. So in there, you have a competitive advantage towards traditional wind energy and solar.

This is what you need to have in a unique setting point by this, that's the reason why. Salt leadership in general is really important

so I think having a clear narrative or something like the airborne wind association is so important to take our message or clear messages of reduced materials, higher sustainability and yet more predictable in certain areas anyway

I think it's a really, really clear narrative and then having that message sent to the right decision makers I think is really, really important and also kind of tied into that in the regulatory space

having a very clear narrative of what an airborne wind turbine looks like and at what operating heights it operates in and stuff like that is really important to bolster the whole sector forward in a kind of united way and kind of together

so the default leadership is one of the clear locking points and one of the clearest ones. That's why it's so interesting here to have startups as well as people like Felix who is looking at the wind resources system

and that we need to actually bring these worlds together because I think the combination of both leads to higher capacity factors we can actually show this using data that is available and it's just that extra step that we need to take

and there is a long road from scientific journal publication to having politicians come in of course I'm already noticing an increasing height of turbines I operate turbines at 100 meters level and I'm trading the wind energy on the Amsterdam power exchange on the hour

so predictability is key in making money and already notice the difference in height between 100 meters and 40 meters height the bigger turbine is better predictable, it's more stable also during the night

so yet if we go even higher, wind is more stable and we have a system with a higher capacity factor it's getting more predictable and the better the prediction is the more money you can make on the power exchange maybe I can comment here a little bit

I think that goes back to why we need to reference to this stuff very often one makes comparisons of the altitude for example you set yourself the normal turbine suddenly gets bigger and bigger than everybody ever thought a lot more years ago floating and you say ok you can't have ground installations very beyond the depth

I think pushing it further or you say you can't have costs less than whatever and the costs come down so what you need is more if you have a framework of a comparison which is a bit parametric you know this is the power density or the energy output that you can achieve

and you have the trend lines how that goes with technology development then you come better into a space where you can say no once we go forward and forward this is a space where nobody can fall in love with anything because of capacity factor I can make a 100% capacity factor which is my new turbine and you have the biggest nameplate turbine but it has a capacity factor of 0

so what you want to do at wind depends on the market you have to adjust but it's a flexible thing and so you want to anchor your knowledge in what you're doing and where it can go and for that I would have liked to see if it exists and I just missed it

but I would have liked to see something this is how we really compare my output system for these parameters this is how it will change and then you can identify the high cost items and companies can go okay and come together we all build the same generators over the whole industry we'll go down in cost or whatever it may be but you need a strong manifestation of it

yeah, two points of total agreement I mean it's absolutely right and you've got a fighting class for it the new selling point and I think they're beautiful, several unique selling points for example there's an impact in terms of saying okay sometimes you don't see anything or for a little bit like the roll out

maybe what's the deployment effort and speed of a machine like this we also have the checkup barges and things like that so there are a few other ones as far as I've seen the resource map for conventional wind and flat on wind basically shows for the US double the deployment to AOS so there are very new things

and just to add to this reference and then the comparison to it I really want to emphasize how important it is to assess and to formulate what's referred to as metrics and I actually don't like the word metrics because everybody thinks it has to be a number and a unit and I say to measure it has to be objective

and you have to be able to do it fast and quick and that is underestimating the problem entirely we spend say 5 million on a project and we spend not even 100 on assessing with the right metric what we do the most important thing is to be holistic not to miss out on those things that are hugely important and impactful

we really don't like them and there are no really good tools to deal with them so that will come out when you have a reference model and all the custom performance drivers will say hey this is important but I'm actually not doing it maybe it's good to mention that tomorrow

in the aerodynamic and structural modeling session we will have ETH Zurich presenting something that we investigate as a reference model it's a multi-megawatt system based on dynamic safety free right in the master and the student actually designing the entire system

it doesn't produce the multi-megawatt because the controller is not yet implementing the degree it could but we have the entire thing in place including our elastic simulation full flight dynamics that could be used that was our solution

just to say we did this in wave energy as well we have three for tile and three for wave energy and three for the different ones just outside we were talking with the provost's student

he was saying he believed that politicians were actually trained and had a qualification that was I'd looked at their scientific abilities and wanted to build abilities I think in the case of where you need to test and work with them to reset

the governance of development systems that we needed an emergency was always good in a way that affects their safety systems looking at what the visual would be you're the visual, you're the project 500 million pound project we'll be given a wee bit of a review

I think we need to take a lesson from that and just move us forward it was a nice day maybe to shift a little bit the topic or bring in another aspect how can we as researchers help the industry

to achieve their goals I mean can we refocus maybe on that question because there is a lot of R&D going on but are we doing the right things I think one question is on research is the resource assessment and couple that to the

power characteristics of systems but are there more things I just want to say that neutral entities like academia and labs and so on

have obviously the duty to serve the industry to totally understand their needs and everything but there is also an aspect of being sounding voice really using the neutrality in the right way that in comparison to other things can be done

you know there are other players which are service providers you go to the clients and the client says this is what I want to have done exactly to serve their needs and they might be mediumly strong in their feedback what the right thing is to do and I think research and the neutral entities don't just have the opportunity they have the duty to find out where things are going wrong

and where maybe things are being forgotten and so on and that can be easily undermined so one other thing that's been maybe helped is on validated tools so I do understand that if a company invested in their tools

and wanted to use it but that's short sighted because at the end there will be developers certification agencies and governments who need to be able to check who is then working and they may not always be able to do that or having prototypes tested to them and therefore we have a ground base

maybe not with all the bells and whistles and trade secrets in it but a fundamental validated tool set which is believable and short of the research community can do so that it's pricing so also that would be considered as useful There was just a comment about reusability of all that great R&D money that's been in the offshore wind already

I was looking at a review paper on O&M logistics recently there are about 20 open source tools that are available through university projects and if the developers create their own in-house tool as well so some of those are really well validated in fact very well validated and can probably be accessed for

very little money by the offshore tech helpers so I think there are probably really specific technical areas where there's commonality there's not commonality between the two where it's just a rinse and repeat variable cost and that should greatly reduce the amount of time and effort required

to solve some of these problems The reason why I said that neutral entities would be a sounding board and have a duty to be constructively critical

is that start-ups have a tough life start-ups have to do two things survive and develop the technology and those two requirements don't go always in the same direction you know company development is about creating expectation for the future

and technology development is about really doing it and that's the point where you know even a neutral entity can support a start-up and the industry by talking to the investor and has a neutral body saying hey this will actually bring you much more value in true improvement of your work

the technology is investing in then maybe showing for a short time and picture a photo I think we are getting this slowly towards an end so let's wrap it up a little bit So maybe one more aspect

I always have the impression that the society is a whole and politics certainly, but all the society are moving a little bit too slowly given the challenges which come with the crisis which we are observing and so at the same time I think we are kind of interested in having the energy see the opportunity

in some sense that if politics shifts now then obviously if in ones future should be ready to really pick that momentum up and in that sense I think also it's a responsibility of academia also first obviously not of us but of other academics to really convince politics in the public that we have to act more quickly

which we need to invest more in technologies like AppleMin and many other promising technologies, but that more specifically for AppleMin and I think that the sources are very good improvement maybe is to have more detailed simulations about how AppleMin really would fit into the global picture and that really goes a little bit beyond the resources system

which we've been talking about a little bit now but to really help in making the simulations as precise as possible as believable as possible as to what would be the real road map and many of us here are experts in that but if we talk to our colleagues and many more experts like that that might be very useful because I think as a society, as a whole

this is the most important thing AppleMin is important, but AppleMin is not as important as getting the next steps in the climate crisis to be done and then at the same time it might come another way I think that this is almost a nice code right? Do you want to add something?

I want to go into the same way so understand the system and bring it so maybe the acceptor has to do more research but this way we were saying maybe we need to make sure and then do that right and then the other things fit into it, the reference, the rules I think maybe we do this

anyway, I mean there is a training for references it's clear that the EU had more in the last year this was one of the key points and AppleMin reacts to that around enough reasons you want to make I think it has to be credible

so you want to have to reach out to the AppleMin community so to the adjacent community so that you can refer to the differences in a way with moving targets so with people building the energy grids, simulating energy grids even on this really moving

analysis of the kind of scale and economic impact of changing energy to support things like this and run on time yeah, and you should be invited thank you very much I would say then we will come

to the next program first of all thank you to all the panelists