Good morning or good afternoon to you all. Thank you for joining our Investor Day. I'm Ladislas Paszkiewicz, in charge of investor relations. After the presentation we had from Helle yesterday on the TotalEnergies outlook, we will focus today on strategy. Patrick Pouyanné and all the members of the executive committee are here and will address your questions during this afternoon. Patrick will first present the strategy. There will be a session of Q&A after that. Will come the time of focus presentations with two main presentation, one on renewable with Philippe Sauquet, one on the mobility revolution with both Bernard Pinatel, who will focus on biofuels, and Alexis Vovk, who will focus on electric mobility. The Q&A session will also take place after the presentations. This is the program for today.
Before we start, I'd like to hand over to Arnaud Breuillac, who will present you the safety moment for today.
Thank you, Ladislas. Today, we’ve chosen to share with you a sad safety moment with the tragic death of one of our contractor staff, a 37-year-old rig floorman. The fatal accident occurred on August 23rd at 11:00 A.M. on our drilling operations in the U.S. Gulf. The incident analysis is still ongoing, but let me present you with our current understanding of what happened. The drill ship Pacific Sharav was pulling the riser column out of the water in preparation for a rig move to escape the storm. This is a routine operation that was executed with no time pressure, as the rig disconnection had been decided well in advance. The injured person was removing damp bolts from the riser column using a heavy duty pneumatic wrench. The weight of this tool is 150 kg, and it was attached to a winch cable with a zero gravity compensator.
The tool became jammed and the injured person was working over the tool during the attempts to free it by pulling on the winch and also by manipulating it manually, as you can see on the small schematic. As the tool suddenly became free, the tension in the winch cable was released and projected the tool upward, hitting the injured person and projecting him from the riser table to the rig floor. Unfortunately, medical efforts at site failed to save his life. This tragic accident ends a two-year fatality-free period for the E&P activities and is a shock to our company. An incident analysis committee is working jointly with the drilling contractor, Pacific Drilling, to determine the root causes of this accident, and preliminary assessments and recommendations have already been shared with local authorities and within Total.
Our next steps are to complete the root cause analysis and to continue to share learnings and mitigation measures so that every possible information is used to prevent similar occurrence. Safety is a core value of Total. We strongly believe that is the cause of operational efficiency. Our track record demonstrates our relentless strive for improvement. This is illustrated by the frequency rate of recordable injury, which is on a good trend that compares well with our peers. Of course, no complacency, as we are more than aware that with safety, every day is a new day. In terms of health, we have limited the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with a fast and proactive response. We've mobilized very early a crisis management cell at group level to support safe continuation of operations around the globe in all parts of our businesses.
We've been able to source and supply more than 100 million masks to 130 affiliates and to enforce strict health protocols to maintain our site and premises COVID-free. As a result, there has been no impact on our production or ability to supply vital products and energy to our customers. We've also supported our communities with contribution adapted to local situations. More broadly, safety defined as HSE, including environmental safety, will be well covered in today's presentation as we believe that long-term success is built on sustainability and acceptability. Thank you.
Good afternoon in London and Paris. Good morning in New York and good evening in Singapore. Welcome this afternoon to the traditional September Total Strategy and Outlook session. First, I hope that you are all safe and sound and coping all right with current COVID-19 situation. Thank you to Arnaud to have made this safety moment and to pay tribute to this young man in the U.S. Arnaud has also to take the traditional slide on our safety commitments and results. To be honest with you, considering the number of short-term challenges and the very high degree of uncertainty we are facing in these extraordinary times, we ask ourselves whether to maintain or not this strategy presentation, as it will be difficult to answer to any question on the very near future.
Because our action plans to tackle the present challenges are well into force, because we demonstrated our higher resilience since the beginning of this crisis, thanks to the work done in past years of upgrading the portfolio, lowering the break even, deleveraging the company to strengthen our resilience. Energy is a matter of denominator. In the same way that we have announced our climate ambition to get to net zero in May at the worst time of the COVID-19 lockdown, we have finally decided to maintain this strategy presentation, and this is probably the most important one I will do since 2015. Today, we will elaborate more precisely, looking to the next decade, how we are willing to reach our ambition to get to net zero by 2050. How we want to transform TotalEnergies to meet the dual challenge, as summarized yesterday by Helle.
More energy and less carbon. Today, you will hear of Total Oil, I would say, will become TotalEnergies with a big S, a broad energy company, which will be the first oil and gas major to take today the commitment that it will reduce by 2030 the Scope 3 emissions of its customers in absolute value compared to 2015. Customers, their demand. What are the keywords shaping our strategy? Our strategy derives from demand evolution, markets evolution, and not from supply availability, as it could have been in the past. Yesterday, rightly in her introduction, Helle told you that the Total 2020 Energy Outlook focused on energy demand, not energy supply. This was intentional, because changing the world energy mix to meet the climate challenge will in priority require to change the demand patterns together with our customers, together with society.
Today, we will use concrete examples of successful projects to demonstrate proof of concept that building a multi-energy company is possible. Today, we will explain why becoming a broad energy company is consistent with our long-term strategy to invest for profitable growth, with our capital discipline approach, targeting increased cash flows and returns. Today, we will show you how our oil and gas businesses will fund the transition, even at $40 per barrel, for profitable growth in renewables and electricity while supporting the dividend at the same time. Time is right to accelerate growth into low carbon. Surge in demand for green energy and climate action is triggering wave of supportive government policies and attracting new financial partners and is creating opportunities to grow in new areas and unconsolidated markets. Strategically, we recognize sustainability is a key to long-term success.
The shift in demand driven low-carbon sales mix underpins Scope 3 neutrality. Diversifying activities by growing renewables power generation increase resilience and mitigates oil price volatility. Accelerating energy transition and transforming to broad energy company is a matter of leveraging expertise and competitive advantages to selectively capture opportunities and build long-term positions that will enable us to achieve our ambition of moving forward with society and stakeholders to grow the company sustainably and profitably and get to net zero by 2050 or sooner. The next decade, 2020-2030, will be a transformative decade for Total. Further upgrading the portfolio, favoring gas over oil, accelerating expansion of low-carbon electricity, and decarbonizing the sales mix, all within the framework of strict capital discipline. The energy transition is an inevitable evolution. Cleaner energies will continue to displace traditional energies at an accelerating rate.
The real risk is not participating in the transition and being left behind. We have the knowledge, the technology, the financial strength needed to thrive in fast-growing areas like renewables, biofuels, and carbon capture. We have studied this for years and developed our in-house expertise. We have visibility, and we are confident on the returns we can expect in the next five years from this strategy. Now we go to work, we will execute and deliver. In 10 years, we grow the company largely by developing opportunities we have in hand today and will reduce emissions. We talk the walk and we walk the talk. Let's go for now, one-hour presentation. It will be a little long. To describe to you the thematic of the dual challenge, or we will tackle it, increasing energy while decreasing carbon. This presentation is a little different from previous ones.
You will have, at the beginning, the menu for the first 10 slides. I will announce you the menu with simple slides, maybe some of them will surprise you. Then after, I will enter into the menu for each dishes, with some details. At the end, for the dessert, I will come back to you to summarize and speak about returns to shareholders. Let's go in the journey that we have prepared. I will speak alone today. It's mainly due to this virtual, I would say, exercise. It was more complex to us. Honestly, this is the result of the hard work of all the teams, and it's why all my colleagues are there together with me. I'm the voice, the spokesperson for the whole teams and the whole executive committee to describe the strategy.
Of course, and it'll be short because you heard Helle yesterday during one hour. All the strategy, again, is linked to the evolution of the demand we anticipate. We have seen scenarios. I think there are two big trends. Growing population in emerging countries aiming at higher living standards, so a growing energy demand, which we have to face. The other part of the challenge is absolute necessity to get the planet to carbon neutrality by 2050, if we can, and the latest by 2070, with all the countries being on board. That's the two challenges. In front of that, this has some implications, like it was presented to you by Helle, on the energy mix and on the various sources of energy.
For oil, it's clear that the acceleration of innovation to substitute oil use is there. That oil demand will plateau 2030+ and then decline. It will have so an impact on long-term prices. As you know, Total is considering $50 per barrel. On natural gas, in the scenarios which have been presented to you, clearly the natural gas is key in the energy transition, available, affordable, complement to renewables, with a specific segment of natural gas which has the fastest growth, which is the LNG. Natural gas also will have to be decarbonized with greener, with biogas and hydrogen. The other segment of the energy mix which will grow quicker is electricity.
Clearly, if we want to go to net zero policies, electricity will be at the core of the mix, coming from 20% of the worldwide energy mix to at least 40% in the net zero, in the 1.5 degree scenario. Of course, this will have to be decarbonized electricity. Renewables will be the segment which will have the highest growth. Last but not least, as it was explained to you, to get to carbon neutrality, carbon sinks are required. These are the trends which we take into account. At the same time, Total, as a responsible company, and our aim is to become the responsible energy major, has expressed its clear ambition in climate ambitions in May this year, getting to net zero.
We clearly share, and not only at company level, but each employee of the company share the ambition to contribute to get to net zero by 2050, together with society for world business. We have established three clear objectives and commitments on this roadmap to get to net zero. The first one is, of course, net zero on our own operations, the emissions of Scope 1 and 2. As you all know, when you speak about the 40 billion tons that yesterday Helle was mentioning as a world emission, this is a sum of Scope 1 of all operation and individuals in the planet. Scope 1 are additive. If each company is taking care of the Scope 1, then the planet will be at net zero. We are also on the top of it because it's a requirement from the society.
We have not to work only on our emission, but to work with our customers in order to help them to go and to change their demand patterns. If we want to move the planet, we need not only to act on the supply, but we need also, as I said, to act on the demand. There we took two commitments regarding, I would say, the emission of our customers. The first one is for Europe. Europe is very important for Total because 60% of our sales and our customers are located in Europe. We took the commitment because Europe itself, at a political level, has decided and has set itself the same target to be carbon neutral by 2050.
There is no reason, and no way, in fact, to escape to work together with Europe and to be ourselves carbon neutral in Europe by 2050 or sooner. At the worldwide basis, on the question of the Scope 3 emissions of our customer, we set a target in terms of carbon intensity, which is to diminish our portfolio of sales, the carbon intensity of the portfolio of sales by 60% or more by 2050. In May we said that, and of course, today we will explain you how we translate that ambition, taking into account the evolution of energy markets into a strategy. The strategy is summarized on this chart. In simple words, that is big ones in Total. I think the message there is that clearly we want to transform Total into a broad energy company.
This is what we will explain you what it means today, more precisely. It means that we are willing to propose to investors a sort of new concept in energy and company of energy encompassing natural gas, electricity, oil, and carbon sinks. Somewhere we summarize that in sort of a motto, Total becoming TotalEnergies with a big S. With, of course, the ultimate objective, that sustainability is key to create long-term value for shareholders. What does it mean by segment of energy? Which is a different approach of the traditional one, but we want to cope with the demand. On natural gas, we are a clear leader in the world, and LNG is one of the fastest-growing segment, so we'll continue to play on that advantage and to maintain and even develop that position, integrating on the value chain.
While at the same time, we'll develop positions in biogas and clean hydrogen in order to decarbonize the natural gas. We'll also promote natural gas for power and mobility. Electricity is, of course, again, the second fastest segment of the energies on which we want to develop and to accelerate our investments. Primarily, electricity being produced from renewables. There again, same strategy to integrate along the electricity value chain. Production, storage and trading, and supply. Oil will remain a core activity because the demand for oil is still there, despite we go to the plateau. There, because of the trends that we expressed, we will focus our investments on low-cost oil, which will be resilient to the volatility of the oil price. As well, we'll invest in biofuels, which will be a substitute to oil for liquid use of energy.
At the same time, of course, we have to adapt our refining capacity and sell to the demand in Europe, where we are a big refiner. Last but not least, carbon sinks. Because we want to be ourselves carbon neutral, we'll have to take our share of investing in carbon sinks, either natural base or carbon capture, use, and storage. That's in fact the menu that I propose. Just to complement the menu now with a few figures. We have a growing, we want to increase energy. We have some ambition to continue to grow the company, let's be clear. That means as we are an energy supplier, to grow our energy production. Our growth for the next decade will come from the two segments which prefer the fastest growth, which are LNG, as I said, and electricity.
As you can see on this chart, by the way, because we know you better understand million barrel of equivalent per day than terawatt per hour, we translated on the left side, the scale is in million barrel of oil equivalent per day. It's a little complex, to be honest, to transform some terawatt per hour in million barrel of oil equivalent per day. I'm not sure, by the way, that our stakeholder would be happy if we continue like that. On the right scale, we put another unit, which will help maybe to better understand, which is the petajoule per day. I think our Australian friends love this unit, so maybe we'll have to take that on board.
More seriously, what we show you that is that this company has the ambition to grow from around 3 million barrel of oil equivalent per day today to 4 million barrel by 2030. The growth will come for half from gas, in fact, from LNG, let's be clear. The other half will be from electrons and green electrons. The 120 TW hour of which appear there are equivalent to 500,000 barrel equivalent per day. The oil will remain in our portfolio, but will be stable, maybe could decline by horizon as 2030, but the decline will be replaced by biofuels, by productions of another liquid. Again, some customers will need a liquid form of energy in the future. That's for the growth. At the same time, we want to reduce emissions. Today, we are taking new commitments on the Scope 3 emissions of our customers.
I should say, of the energy products used by our customers. In fact, it's not really true, it's not the Scope 3 emissions. The Scope 3 emissions of our customer are their Scope 1, in fact. Let's say it like that. In absolute value, that's the most important word. Until now, we are the first major oil and gas company to take a commitment in absolute value on the decrease of the Scope 3 emission of our customers. Why do we take that? First, I come back to the comm7itment we took on being carbon neutral in Europe by 2050. I read the comments about the fact that we are concentrating only on Europe. Again, you will see the positive impact it has as a world company. Europe, again, represents 60% of our emissions in 2015. Was the same, by the way, in 2019.
The absolute figure did not diminish between 2015 and 2019. 410 million Scope 3 emissions are reported by Total. In Europe, very clearly an acceleration of the evolution of the demand. We commit to reduce the Scope 3 emissions of our European customers by 30% by 2030, which will be a first step to go to 100% by 2050. This, we'll come back on that. This results, this commitment on Europe, of course, contributes to the fact that we can take a second commitment today, which is that on a worldwide basis, our Scope 3 emission in 2030 will be lower than the one in 2015. Again, we are the first to take that commitment.
Stakeholders ask us a question after we make our commitments in May and tell us that, "Okay, 2050 is fine, but what do you do in 2030?" You have the answer today. You ask me, "What do you do? You grow on one side your production, you reduce your emissions. What is the magic tool that you have found?" In fact, again, it's just about demand. What is driving, at the end, most of the emissions are not the ones we emit when we produce. When we produce, Total emits 50 million tons of CO2. The products we sell and our customers which are using these products, they emit 400 million tons. The focus must also be there.
In fact, we are able to reduce our emissions on the Scope 3 part, to reduce the Scope 3 emissions, because we will adapt our sales pattern to the demand patterns. What does that mean? That means that in 2019, we sold 55% of oil products, 40% of natural gas, and 5% of electrons. By 2030, by adapting again our system and our sales to the demand, we will reduce the sales of our oil products by almost 30%, which will be, again, as a liquid, in liquids, be replaced by 5% of biofuels. The liquid sales will represent together 35%. Natural gas sales will increase to 50%, linked to our growth in LNG. The electrons, in particular, these green electrons, will represent 15% of our sales.
That with the three slides, you have the framework of the strategy of the company and why we say we are somewhere transforming Total. Of course, to do that, we'll need to align investments to become that broad energy company we aspire to be. That means that along the years, the next 10 years, the next decade, progressively, because it's a matter to have access to more and more projects, we will increase the capital we spend in renewable electricity. We'll maintain the capital we spend in LNG, more or less 15%-20% of our CapEx. Oil and gas will continue to receive the major part of it, because, and that's fundamental to the transformation, we need to continue to deliver cash flows coming from oil and gas in order to be able to finance the growth that we want to deliver in renewable electricity.
You have some indication about these increasing capital spends in renewables and electricity. It was $1.5 billion last five years, 10%. It will be more than $2 billion and more than 15% of our capital investments for the next five years, it will progressively grow to more than $3 billion and more than 20% on the next five years. This strategy aims, of course, not only to grow. It's not a matter of volume, it's a matter of value for all of you. We know very well the message. At the same time, we will be able to, of course, increase cash flows and deliver a double-digit profitability, more than 10% of return equity at $50 per barrel. I will come back on this slide at the end of my presentation, just have a look. What do you see?
You see that if you take, we took by chance the last 12 months of an average of $51 per barrel. As we propose to look in 2025 to an environment at $50 with a sensitivity at $60, you can see that renewable and electricity in five years appear with $1.5 billion. You can see that there is an increase of around the 30% of the LNG cash flows. I'll come back on that. You can also see that, of course, oil and gas and LNG are offering us upside if price is higher than the $50 case base. That's, again, the engine. In fact, let's be clear, the oil and gas is the engine of transformation because they will give us the block to be able to accelerate investing in renewables and electricity.
You will tell me, and I often have the question, why Total? Why do you think you can become this broad energy company? We took the question seriously, and we put there the eight elements, I would say, which we consider are competitive advantage and which we can build to grow in renewable and electricity, and not to remain only an oil and gas company. You should read them from bottom to the top. They go 2x2 . All that is well organized, engineers in Total. The first one, of course, I just mentioned it. We have the oil and gas cash flow. We have the financial capacities. The second one, which is important, we are thinking on a worldwide basis. We have a worldwide footprint, where we think about the strategy of renewables and electricity. I will come back on it.
We can think to the world, looking for the best opportunities. From this perspective, we are offering something different than many utilities, which in fact, are more national, continental, or Atlantic. The second elements of competitive advantages are linked to the technical capacities and competencies of the company. Project management and offshore expertise is clear, and when we look to offshore wind project management, we speak about three, four projects in which we invest in Scotland, represent $4 billion of CapEx. When we want to be pioneer in floating offshore wind, obviously, we have there some in-house expertise which can be used and leveraged to be pioneer of this technology. The third elements are linked, in fact, to our strong position in gas. In fact, we don't discover power today.
Our teams, under the leadership of Philippe and our trading teams, have for long looked to gas to power with some power projects, by the way, gas fire power plants. The integration gas to power is well known. We know we have the expertise of all these markets, oil, gas, and electricity through our trading teams, which we have put all together in Geneva since last year to leverage better all the knowledge we have towards markets. Last but not least, when we go to downstream, to the customers, within the DNA of Total, there is a customer proximity through all the activity we get in Marketing & Services. We have another asset, which is our global brand, our global reach. Just more information, but we recently acquired a portfolio of customers, gas and power customers in Spain.
We made some polls among the population to try to ask the question, which brand should we use? 45% of the Spanish who answer to the poll knew Total, having a good image of Total, despite the fact that we leave, unfortunately, Spain 10 years ago, when we sold all our shares in Cepsa. This brand as an asset and the global reach it represent, and we should build on it. These are, I would say, why we are confident. Not only to speak about the advantage, but to put them into action, in particular at the technical competencies. Today, we have launched a project. It's still at a project, so it's not yet, of course, I would say, in action, which we call the OneTech project.
The idea is to concentrate all the group's technical expertise, which are spread today between E&P, Refining & Chemicals, Marketing & Services in Gas Renewables & Power. In one large technical center, which will represent this central organization, more than 3,300 engineers. Why do we do that? Not at all to make synergies. No. We will, at the contrary, we want to leverage the existing expertise, which are high because Total, the success of Total today are largely due to our technical competencies of our engineers and technicians around the world. We want to really leverage that in order to give to our renewable and electricity business that will grow now at a large scale. I would say, manufacturing and technical backgrounds that it requires if we want seriously to build this broad energy company, and this is our purpose.
If we want to foster innovation, we need to be able to allocate these competencies to these new businesses. I will tell you, it's not only the company who wants, it's our employees. Our employees today, really, they are all like in the society. They want to contribute to the climate challenge. They are in an energy company. They have the competencies, and I've seen when we propose them to tackle their emissions, they raise 500 ideas, different projects. They are willing to contribute. Of course, they hear what is happening around us. They see the pressure on Total as an oil and gas company. They don't want to be in the dinosaur park. They want to be together in this transformation. I think what we offer them there will be a unique opportunity to contribute directly to the transformation of the company.
It's why I'm using transformation today for the first time in my speech. It's not only a matter of strategy, financial, capital allocation. It's a world company. We want to embark in that project globally and in particular, again, our technical competent people, which are at the core of what is an industrial company like Total. You have the menu. I could stop my presentation there, but I have more slides, to give you some details, and it's quite a little long. I hope you will like the dishes 1x1 . The first one, the first part, I will go through the gas, through the electrons, and the liquids. Today, the presentation is at upstream, downstream, it's a little different. We do it through segments of demand. Gas is first. Of course, it's clear.
LNG, again, you understood, is at the core of our ambition. Why? Because this market experienced a growth of more than 10% per year in the last five years. The first semester, despite the pandemic, it was plus 7%. I heard yesterday that in August, the Chinese demand has grown by 12% in August. You know, this is a market which clearly, because in fact, in the energy transition, there is a strong case for gas replacing coal. When I heard this last week, President Xi from China announcing carbon neutrality by 2060, I'm sure it's one of the good news for promoting LNG. Of course, renewable will be there as well, and hydrogen and EVs in China, but gas will be clearly have a lion's share in that mix. We are very well positioned.
On the top of it, there is not only the demand, but on the supply side, it's true that we face, since last year, a form of oversupply, which has been accentuated by the pandemic somewhere. Because of the pandemic, there is a lot of projects which are delayed in terms of sanction this year. No new projects. Last year, all the commentators were afraid to see too many projects by 2025. The reality is that when you delay by one year, and maybe two, because I'm not very optimistic about next year and the oil price, considering the inventories. If you delay by two years, there is no way to accelerate LNG projects. It takes four to five years to build.
That means that there will be a tightened supply by 2024, 2025, as you can see on the chart, maybe even May 2023, even at only 5% growth. That will benefit to Total. Why? Because we sanctioned projects last year. We are in a very good position to benefit from this evolution of the market in LNG. I will not be long on this one. You know that slide. We have established we are the number two worldwide player in an integrated value chain. We are producing in 11 different plants. We have regas terminals. We have long-term customers. A world system, it's a matter of size integration to capture value. For the next five years, we will increase our LNG sales to 50 million tons per year from 35 million tons, so still an increase. Why?
Primarily, oil production will grow by 10 million tons from 20 million tons, more or less, to 30 million tons. 18 million tons- 28 million tons. That's the program. Again, I will not be long. I will answer the questions if you have. We have three flagship LNG projects, Arctic 2 in Russia, 27 Mozambique LNG. They all progress well despite the pandemic. 38% progress for Arctic. Mozambique LNG engineering is progressing very well. The project financing is in place. All the early works are done to welcome the construction. Just a note, if you add the three figures, which are at the bottom of the slide, it represents $1.5 billion of cash, which will be generated at the project level in group share. You will understand why after that, I will speak to you about growing cash flow from LNG.
It's not only because we give you today a view not only to 2025 but to 2030. What is an important message? With all the work which has been done in the last years, we have already in our portfolio enough resources to feed the future growth beyond 2025 until 2030 by the additional 10 million tons. We have generated many options in, of course, the Russia giant Arctic resource with our partner, Novatek, which is targeting 70 million tons of LNG by 2030. In Mozambique, we are beyond the first phase. There is more to come, much more remaining resources which could be developed in synergies with other operators. We have in the U.S. projects which are expansions of existing plants, which are generally quite profitable, like an expansion of Cameron and also a new project we want to develop in Baja California.
Papua LNG has been delayed because of the pandemic, but it's there and will be developed, I'm convinced, because of its geographic position. It's another option. There could be more to come. That means that Total will not spend a lot in M&A to acquire LNG resources in the next 10 years. We have what we need in our hand. Again, I mentioned these figures already. We approach with all the integration that the LNG marketing and trading teams are creating value from scale and arbitrage. The strategy of Total, let's just one minute on the right-hand side of this chart. As you can see, there is more and more integration. We want to dedicate or when we take some market risk, when we market LNG by ourselves, we took it on our balance sheet. We want to do it in an integrated way.
We think that being a pure merchant player is exposing to volatility of the market. Like it's the case today where you have some commitments to offtake some LNG, but there is no real market to which absorb it or at a very low price. It's much better to come back to the integrated approach, which is that we will market the LNG we produce. Of course, as you know, in the past, we have taken some offtake commitments from the U.S. LNG. In the meantime, we are developing positions. You can see that this white part at the top of the column is diminishing, and that will be the trend, clearly to exit from a pure merchant risk, but to take the risk if we have also the profits coming from the production and the infrastructure, I would say, the LNG plant.
I would say that, we have a good, again, you've seen this chart, this slide last year, it's useful to us to express what it means, integration. It means that when we are developing a customer portfolio in Europe, either through gas power plant or through customers, B2C and B2B customers, we are having a short, I would say, of LNG. It represent 11 million tons of short. These 11 million tons, we have the infrastructure to fill them. It's owned by us, regas capacities. We have 20 million tons, we can manage them. We have also the portfolio in Europe will represent around 20%-25% of our sales. Europe is key because it's a very liquid market, it's very accessible. You've seen that it's a sort of market with last resort. We observed it last year when the price of LNG are low.
Everybody's coming to Europe, it's better to be able to control your infrastructure. By the way, we are quite happy to see our regas capacity being full and making money in this type. It was again, the advantage of the integration. That's in terms of cash flows that you can expect from our integrated LNG business. We put there the 2019 figure at $64, so you can compare to what we'll be able to deliver in 2025. Again, the production will increase by 40%, the LNG production, from 500 something to 800 on this period with the project which have been all launched. You can observe that, in fact, we'll be able to deliver the same cash flow at $40 per barrel when last year at $64. You have 70%, more or less, of the LNG portfolio, which is linked to the oil price.
It's why you have clearly an upside. At $60, it represents between $1.5 billion-$2 billion extra cash flows. You have the same assumptions of NEP and GKM to be able to compare and to have the sensitivity to the Brent price. I belong on gas. I cannot stop there on gas without speaking about methane. Again, if you want to be consistent, we have to be consistent with the climate ambition. The methane, when you speak about gas, is in fact lowering our Scope 1 and 2. There, there are two informations. The first one is on the right. In fact, when we look to our operating gas assets, I can say today that we are almost near zero emissions because the methane intensity of our operating gas assets is lower than 0.1%.
I don't know if we can measure it lower than it, but that means that honestly, we are at the top of the class. We are hoping to continue to drive it and surely not to let him coming back higher, but we have a very strong position. The methane emission of Total as a whole are coming more, in fact, from the oil business than from gas business. Globally speaking, if we take oil and gas as the average intensity is around 0.2%, and we look to drive down because as you see on the left, we have a program and we are investing to continuously reduce on methane emissions. We've done 45% of reductions in the last 10 years, and we'll continue to drive down, in particular by stop flaring, by limiting the flaring or eliminating some cold vents on some mature oil fields.
There is a program, methane emissions, and really there, I think, we are participant to many initiatives, and to be transparent of that is very important when we want to be a leader in natural gas. The other way, of course, to be consistent with our climate ambition is not only to invest in natural gas, but also in biomethanes and clean hydrogen, because these are the ways to decarbonize natural gas. On these two business, it's quite new to Total. 2020 is an important year because we have established two business units, recruiting people outside the company to bring expertise. One for biogas, and the other one for clean hydrogen. I mean, for hydrogen, but in fact for clean. Clean means that we are color blind in Total.
Even if I will tell you that green hydrogen, when you are investing a lot in renewables, is of course quite attractive. On biomethane, at this stage, we set a first target. Probably we will increase it in the coming years when we'll have a better understanding of both business. We set a target that 10% of the gas we supply to our CCGTs in Europe should be biomethane. A way to decarbonize our Scope 1 emissions, in fact, there. This would represent around 5 TW hour per year. On the clean hydrogen side, of course, there are many interests in the company for hydrogen. It's, of course, for the marketing. It's a way to decarbonize, I would say, the road transportation, the trucks, the buses, trains, private fleets. We are looking to that business where we are today some small positions.
I will come back. We are also looking to produce green hydrogen, and we will have a sort of showcase in La Mède, our biorefinery, where we want to establish an industrial project with 100 MW solar plants feeding a 30 MW electrolyzer. We are working on it, and we'll come back on it when we'll have clear ideas. It's clearly, in fact, in the next five years, our plan is to have one green hydrogen project in our hands to better understand it. A real one with intermittency, the storage issues, and with real customers. A blue one, which means decarbonizing by capturing the CO2 from SMR and sending the CO2 in depleted fields. This one we are looking in the Netherlands. That's for gas. Now, my second dish is electrons. This is a new one.
You didn't hear, you will hear a lot of electrons, much more than you'll ever hear within Total. You have seen the news coming month after month since the beginning of the year. We have been quite active, it's because, by the way, all this activity of our teams. In fact, it's just that we receive the fruits of what we grew for the last two, three, four years. It's been 2020. Because of that, we have a better visibility, a better understanding. I would say we have figures, we have models which we can add and tell you today what we can deliver, not only in terms of capacity, production, but also in terms of results and cash flow like for the other business.
I think as soon as we told you that we'll spend more in that business, of course, we need to be clear about the value creation. We can do it today. We'll do it, you notice what I already said. Our development in the electricity will be along the full value chain, from production to trading through trading and storage to customers. This is why we develop customers as well. You have there some figures, I will make one comment. You see that by 2025, we expect to have nine million customers. Today in France, Belgium, and Spain, we have around six million customers. We want to grow between today and in these businesses. We will produce, if you add the net production coming from our gas firepower plants and from renewables, around 50 TW net.
The difference between being supplied in France by some power coming from the nuclear system, at which we are eligible when you are a competitor in the system in France. I would add another comment, just to educate you the way we'll speak about electricity. You will hear us speaking about gross capacity and about net production. Why this choice? It's not to grow the figures like I read in a newspaper. Not at all. It's just gross capacity, it's a good metric for understanding the development phase and the financial CapEx that we need to finance if we want to build these plants. We are ready to build and develop the plants at a 100% basis in Total. That means a lot when you look to the development phase. Having said that, gross capacity is not at all another capacity.
Either gross or net, by the way, is not the right metrics to speak about profit and loss, to speak about revenues, to speak about cash flows. Why? Because like in E&P, when I am announcing that we sanction Mero, we speak Mero 3, we speak about a project of 180,000 barrel per day, I think. It's a 100% gross capacity, and then we have our own production will be 30,000 barrel per day net. There again, we make the difference and we speak about net production, which is a basic of all the P&L cash flows and revenues, and which is another phase of the project. One, it has been invested and de-risked.
It is true and in our business model, and I will come back on the business model, we intend to sell 50% of what we have invested to cash in part of the value immediately, to de-risk also the project, and then we'll have in our net production 50% of what we have developed. We will continue to speak about gross capacity and net production. Last word, in electricity, capacity doesn't mean a lot of things. In E&P, in my example, when we speak about 180, there is a good chance that E&P will produce at 95%, I would say, of the capacity. In electricity, when you speak about capacity, it means nothing because your solar plant will be run at 20%, your wind farm will wind onshore at 30, your wind offshore at 50, and your gas-fired power plant, you don't know.
It could be to 20%-60%, depending on the weather or the other, because it's not a base load. That means that, again, I'm advocating that this gross capacity is the right metrics in order to better evaluate the investment phase and that net production for the P&L. I have been long, but I want to clarify that today. The business model I just mentioned, and I have often the question, but all that is not profitable. I mean, it's not profitable. It's profitable, it's maybe not delivering the same upside, but when you invest in an oil business because, of course, as I've seen in the previous slide, when you are in the oil business, you have the upside when the price is going up. You have also the downside when the price is going down, which is your business model is less stable.
It delivers profitability at the end. It's why we say we have a capital light model. The way we envisage our development in that business, I reiterate to you, is a typical project IRR will be around 5%. We'll get, first, there is a lot of attractiveness from the financial world. Why is there a lot of attractiveness from the financial world to finance these projects? Because this is the other part of the slide. These projects are offering predictable cash flows with long-term upside. The predictability of the cash flow, because of the PPA either granted by state or corporate PPAs, are attractive enough to financial institutions to be able to bring money. We can leverage easily.
Without it being ourselves, I would say, a green company, it's easy for Total to leverage our robust balances to finance this project with the same competitiveness, even better sometimes, than our competitors. We put typically 70/30, yesterday we approved a project in Japan, it was 85/15. That's why at the end we can say that it's in terms of equity, we have to inject and capital light, it's quite, we can leverage it. It's, I would say, this is consistent with the CapEx we have announced. We will farm down 50%. Why do we consider that farm down is important? It's not only a matter of accounting, it's more fundamental to that. You are signing PPAs with third parties, state, or corporations for 10, 15 years. You never know what quite can happen.
I'm afraid some state, even European states, could sometimes envisage to revisit their contracts. Farming down is a way to cash in immediately part of the future revenues while de-risking 50% of the project. I think honestly, this is the same type of business models that we applied in our own in-gas business. We are never 100%. We share the risk because of the magnitude of it. When you look to offshore wind project, frankly, to be 100%, it would be quite brave. There is this, and at the end, the target permanently to us is to have more than 10% return. Our projects in Japan we looked yesterday was far above 10%, more in the 20% plus, to be honest.
It's true that I can confirm to you that all the projects which have been announced by Total since the beginning of the year have reached that threshold of at minimum 10%, and some of them are above, thanks to that mechanics. The other advantage and why we see some value to invest in renewables is that it's strengthening our group business model because it's balancing the cash flow risk profile by giving predictable cash flows. It has some long-term upside, because beyond this first period of PPA, there are some upsides. Solar panels are there for 30 years, not for 15. Even if you have to change something, most of the investment has been done, including access to the land. In the wind farm, you can change the turbines for more powerful turbines and get more energy from your same location.
There is a life beyond the PPA. This tail value, of course, we are entering into merchant markets with volatility and the renewables will increase renew volatility in this electricity market. That's clear. It's offering to our successors in 50 years, new cash flows with investments being largely done. The second upside will be to be able to produce green hydrogen from these renewable plants because you can have easily access to marginal zero cost electricity and then store your energy. It's a way to enhance the production capacity from your renewable investment. Last but not least, Trading, aggregation. The more you have decentralized source of energy, there is clearly added value to be able to aggregate all that and to deliver it to the grid. That's a competence on which we are building in the company, and we will deliver higher value.
I was long there, but I think it's important to explain to you why we consider that this investment in renewables and power is not only a matter of being responsible in terms of climate change, it's also fundamentally to create value for the long-term for our shareholders. I did not mention it, just for fun, I think you read it on the first slide, but the capacity we are targeting by 2025 is no more 25 GW, but 35 GW. I know that people were asking themselves, why it's coming from the 25 GW for 2025? The reality is that the activity of our teams has been great since, I would say, last two years. Today, when we look to what we have in our portfolio, we have already this 24 GW, 25 GW. 24 GW rather than 25 GW, but let's say we have them.
We have five gigawatts, maybe six, by the way, in operations. We have four or 5 GW in construction. We have built a pipeline, 5 GW being announced in solar in Spain, in France, and in other countries. The question to ask ourselves, okay, we are there. We know that in the renewable business for this type of solar and wind, offshore wind. Onshore wind, sorry, not offshore. Onshore wind. The duration of a project is two years, two years and a half. We can still increase our ambition by 2025, but we will continue to work in 2021. This project, 2021- mid 2022, will feed our renewable capacity by 2025.
This is why we have raised the bar on 35 GW- 45 GW, building again on the 2020 dynamic, where I would say that we have been not only able to capture opportunities, but at a low entry cost, and that's a tribute to the teams. I speak about production, because at the end, as I will show you figures of P&L, what is important is production. 50 TW hours by 2025 of production, 40% from gas-fired power plants, 60% from renewables. 2050, clearly, priority will be given to the growth in renewables more than gas-fired power plants, because in Europe, we see a limitation to that. The target is to reach the equivalent of 500,000 barrels per day, 120 TW hours per year.
At this level, clearly, we will be among the top leaders in renewables, but the ambition of Total, we are among the top five in oil and gas, is to reach the same level in renewables. That means that we'll have to have the engine to continue to feed our future growth by adding 10 GW per year of new projects, of growth capacity. This is an important slide just to show you that what we are building today is quite a unique renewable portfolio because we look, we'll have at the end, four various vehicles, a full worldwide footprint representing, again, this 35 GW. You see that, of course, Europe will have a Lion share, sorry. We'll be also quite strong, quite big in India, around 6 GW. China and the U.S. are also areas where we intend to develop, and South America.
By the way, when you look to this map, it's not exactly the same map we have in oil and gas. This business is rebalancing somewhere the group geopolitical profile. Again, I said to you, we have one competitive advantage is to think on a worldwide basis and to look to various opportunities. This is what you can see. Sadly, Africa is not well represented. It will be our next challenge, I think it's because today our renewable teams are going where it's more easy to have access to capacities. Having with the OneTech story, I'm convinced that all the people who know very well Africa and the company will be able to accelerate that development in that continent. I will not be long there because Philippe will come back in a Zoom on offshore wind.
Just to tell you, I mentioned it, but yes, we have decided to be pioneer in floating offshore wind. We are not late. On fixed bottom offshore, we are late compared to some competitors, even we acquired some interest in the very large projects. We think that there is a huge potential for offshore wind, that this technology will still benefit from strong policy support in coming years, and we want really to be at the forefront of this technology. That these are the figures that I promised to you, with not only figures, a little more than that. You have even a curve for the ones who want to try to measure what is behind.
The important figures that will deliver this net production of 50 TW hourx 20 TW hour per year in 2025 will deliver a result of $1 billion, cash flow of more than $1.5 billion, and capital employed of $15 billion. People will make the math, we say it's a ratio of 7%, but let's be clear, part of that are unproducing capital employed because we are in a growing mode, so we'll continue to feed capital, which are not all producing during this period of building this business. Let's come to the third dish, which is the liquids. Not to drink, to be sure. The water is fine. There, the motto is value over volume. Clearly, again, remember what Helle explained you about the trends in the market. A word about the market, having said that.
You have seen that all the presentation is done at $50 and $60 a barrel. That when we announced recently our price deck for making our implement test, we said we give a price deck, which in the coming years is low, $35 today, but will grow gradually. Why? Because I will not speak about OPEC, demand, et cetera. Today, I'm speaking about investments. All companies have lowered their investments. $300 billion will be invested in 2020 in upstream. I suspect by 2021, it will not be much higher because everybody will be cautious about it. Only 250,000 barrels per day have been sanctioned. Almost nothing. One of the project, by the way, is in the Total portfolio with Mero 3, and maybe a second one with Uganda will be there. We continue to work.
On the top of it, not only lack of investment, but all the shale oil dynamic we observe in the U.S. in the last three years, which, of course, has somewhere overcome the deficit of investments. There is less enthusiasm. Clearly, the financial investors, not only this year but with last year, are asking themselves questions. We think that the dynamic there, even if our U.S. friends are always surprising it, is much more uncertain than it was last year, and the lessons drawn by the fact that U.S. shale oil has been among the production which were curtailed, among the first to be curtailed voluntary, I think is a strong signal. Our vision is that there will be a reduced supply, not enough investments to compensate the natural decline, which is supportive for oil price medium-term rebound.
Cannot tell you now, but by 2025, we'll be very surprised if we don't see $50, even $60 per barrel. Remember, by the way, by today, we are sad, but we were at $72 in 2018. In this world and we are all well-paid to know that volatility means really something in the downside and the upside in the oil markets. For TotalEnergies, as I said, value over volume, it's a matter of fundamentally adapting our value chain in the oil business to the demand, and in particular in Europe. You know we said we are integrated between production liquids because we have oil and condensate in that figure, of course, which are liquids, refining capacity, and oil product sales.
What you can see in 2019, because we have in the last 10 years had to diminish to adapt our refining capacity to the demand in Europe, we have disconnect between our sales and our refining capacity. It's not only a matter of integration, and we will continue to drive down this refining capacity. By the way, we have done the work in the last three months for 2025 because we have announced the divestment of the Lindsey Refinery and the transformation of the Grandpuits platform into zero oil platform with a unit of biofuels to produce more biofuels. That's a trend, I think. On the demand on the sales, we'll increase the biofuels, and we will have again to adapt our sales to the demand, in particular in Europe, where we are very large retailer. That's the trends.
On the production side, I said that we have built our positions. We are the leader in terms of low-cost producer among the majors at $5 per barrel, and we confirm that we'll maintain that level. I'm sure Arnaud and his team will do better, $5 is already quite low. That's something which is embedded in our strategy for five years to look for low-cost oil. This has helped a lot, of course, to diminish the group cash breakeven with the help as well of our downstream businesses in refining and marketing and everybody. We are a low-cost oil producer. We intend, of course, to build on that advantage. Why are we in such situation? I would just insist today a few minutes on the fact that we have a strong asset in our portfolio.
It's our strong presence in the Middle East and North Africa, because when you say my strategy is to focus on low-cost oil, where do you find it? To be honest, you find it in Middle East and North Africa. Recently, we have continued to build that portfolio, accessing to the Abu Dhabi concession, accessing to Al Shaheen, accessing to Berkine Basin in Algeria. Consistently, we have built this portfolio, which represent today 40% of group oil resource. When we said that strategy, it means that we have that already also. It's an history in Total. This represents 650,000 barrels per day of production, oil and gas. The oil, 450, which is 1/3 of the oil production of Total. Look, the average cost of production is $3.50 per barrel. This oil will be produced for long, for sure, and the profitability is good.
Okay, I know that people say that in the Middle East, these core terms are tough. It's clear. At $35 per barrel this year, we are quite happy to have these productions, which giving us, because there is less sensitivity, a ratio of 10% of $35 per barrel. I'm not sure there are many oil and gas assets which can deliver such a profitability this year. This is a position which we intend to continue to build. If we have opportunities to grow in that region, Total will look carefully, and it's a priority. Another region, which is just to fight the idea that deep water is permanently a high-cost business.
When you look to the giant fields we are developing in Brazil, this can be qualified because they are giant of low-cost opportunities, and we have built a material positions in the last five years there with the Mero development, which will produce almost 700,000 barrels per day, with the Iara development, which has the potential to increase. We are operator Lapa. We have in our hand, it seems, according to my explorers, a unique high-profile exploration license that we intend to drill soon. Brazil, by the way, is not only a matter of low-cost oil offshore, it's onshore, a growing market for marketing and services division for biofuels. The attractiveness of Brazil for Total is it's an important country, large population, large markets on which we intend to continue to grow. By the way, it's also a land of opportunity for renewables and power and for LNG.
Brazil is one of these countries which will be in the focus of the strategy for the next 10 years. I was speaking about exploration. People are asking us, "Where do you go with exploration and with your climate ambition? How do you make all that consistent?" I think it's clear that exploration will have also a challenge of transformation. Not to stop exploring, don't please understand me. To explore things, objects, prospects, which are in line with what we express, which is low cost oil in terms of development, not in terms of drilling. That's something on which I know that Kevin McLachlan is working hard with his teams. Of course, today our portfolio is not really with this trend. It was built, it's long to build a portfolio trend.
I can tell you that the new licenses that we will acquire, the executive committee will be very clear about the fact that we want to dedicate up to $1 billion. We cap the budget, but with $1 billion you can find oil, on these targets which fit with our strategy. I'm happy to say that today we have a clear positive dynamic in exploration and I pay tribute to the team, the explorers, in particular with the Block 58 in Suriname, where we entered last year. The three first wells have been three successes. A fourth one is coming, and there is more to come in 2021. Number of prospects, we will have to appraise all that. It's light oil for the time being with gas.
Honestly, the challenge given to us as we become operator very soon of Suriname is to do as we have done in Angola. In Angola, we discovered in 1996. It was into production in 2002, Girassol. It's possible that this is a golden block. Block 58 could be a golden block as Angola. The challenge will be to put into production Suriname by 2025, even if it's a short and quick development. That's somewhere in which we work and which will fuel the future growth. Again, if it's challenged, it will fit with the strategy. Just to finalize on oil, because again, it's a core activity for Total. Don't misunderstand my message today. We have a portfolio of projects which have been sanctioned in 2019, which we'll have sanctioned today, this year, and which will come tomorrow.
Brazil, Gulf of Mexico, Nigeria, Angola, and one of them being Uganda. As you'll notice, we have been quite active, to act counter-cyclically. We made a deal with Tullow, which was this year better than the one we stopped last year. We were right to stop and to relaunch. We have benefited from, I would say, a good hearing from the Uganda and Tanzania authorities. Maybe because also the economic conditions are lower. We are working on this one. The tenders are expecting these months. Our target is to sanction the project before year-end. All these projects, of course, when we sanction them, we review systematically the CO2 production and the way the teams really design the project to minimize the emissions.
Because part of the climate ambition is to ensure that our investment in oil projects are consistent with our climate ambition. In particular, we look carefully to the carbon intensity of the project, but also of the returns. You can see that the portfolio of projects we have, all the projects have a return of more than 15% at $50, and that the average technical cost, OpEx plus amortization, is around $16. Again, in line with the strategy. When we speak about production oil, we must speak about Scope 1 and Scope 2 because it's like on gas. I spoke about methane. We need to diminish our emissions. We set a target beginning of last year of beginning of 2019, of lowering our emissions down under 40 million tons, despite the fact that there is an increase of activity, I would say, by 2025.
We are working not only on that, and I confirm that we'll reach these 2025 figures, and we will maybe revise it, but we need to work. What we have done this year is to mobilize all the teams, and recently, we took the opportunity of the five-year business plan to ask them to come with projects to reduce. They proposed too many initiatives, I would say 500 emission reduction initiatives. Some of them were at $1 per ton of CO2, some were $200 or $300 per ton. There was a whole spectrum, but we took everything. We didn't take everything, to be honest. That's not true.
We put in our five-year business plan all the initiatives with $100 per ton because it's the metrics we are taking. The others are not forgotten. We will have to work for them to continue to relentlessly lower our CO2 emissions.
What I think is that I was very pleased, to be honest, with the results, is that we have asked, again, all our engineer technicians to engage themselves. They have many ideas. We can cross-fertilize because some ideas which came from one subsidiary could be used in another one. There is a great potential to lower the Scope 1 and 2 emission, and I'm confident we'll reach the net zero by 2050 or sooner even. The other activity we have is around carbon sinks, where our teams, we have established two teams, one working on nature-based solution, the other one's on carbon capture and storage. You've noticed that we entered the Northern Lights project.
We'll not spend time today. In February, I promise you that we'll come back on this Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, the way to reduce them, the way to offset them by carbon sinks, and our colleagues will have the opportunity to make you some presentation. We took the choice today not to be too long because of this virtual exercise. Last but not least. It's like in gas, we speak about methane emission, and when we speak about biogas, hydrogen. On oil, we speak about Scope 1 and Scope 2 of the reduced emission, and we speak about their biofuels because it's a way to decarbonize oil. Bernard will make you an extensive zoom on our ambition in renewable diesel. I will not be long there. Just to tell you that first, we had a first good experience in La Mède.
It's profitable, $350 per ton in the La Mède of cash flow from operations. It's a profitable business, first. Second, that the refiners have one advantage that can easily convert refineries, existing plants, into biorefineries, it lowers the CapEx. We have there, clearly, a role to play. Bernard will explain you that his ambition is to be among the top renewable diesel producer, reaching a minimum 2 million tons by 2025, if not three and five by 2030. It's finished for the part of the menu, which we are increasing energy in gas, electrons, and liquids. Now, I'm going on the part which is reducing emissions and, in fact, more importantly, adapting the energy sales to the market evolution, which is what I will focus now, a few slides, in order to give you more details.
First, that means that fundamentally, it's not at least when we say we are willing to be carbon neutral together as society, people say, "Oh, it's a way not to do it." No, it's not at all the case. What we intend to do is to actively shape the demand by working with our customers, by pushing them to shift their sales to gas and electricity or biofuels, in power generation, in mobility and heating. In power generation, we took the decision not to sell any more fuel oil to power generators from 2025. It's a way, of course, we don't want to lose the customers, so we have to work with them to adapt the system and to convince them that they can produce electricity with better tools and economic ways. We can develop storage solutions.
There is a revolution of mobility, on which I will come back, and heating as well. There is, where some business to be done with our customers. By the way, our customers themselves, most of them, have the same ambition toward carbon neutrality. We need together. We are in the same boat, I would say, to work in the same direction, bringing our expertise in energy sources and their own expertise of their businesses. This is a few things I will focus on. I would say, mobility and revolution of mobility, going from oil and gasoline and diesel to other ways to run cars, planes, boats. Biofuels is not only a matter of producing, and Alexis will come back on it.
We want also to grow our sales of biofuels in Europe, of course, where we are already the largest biofuel retailer, but also in the rest of the world. I mentioned Brazil. Biofuels should represent 10%-15% of the fuel sales by 2030. Gases for mobility is another axis of development. LNG for bunker fuel, we have been active. We are not only active, we have contracts. Now we have some bunkering barge in the North Sea, which have been launched this month, I think. We have also natural gas for road transportation. We have a position in the U.S. for Clean Energy Fuels, where we are shareholder, but also we develop positions in particular in Europe. Europe, we think by NGV, natural gas vehicles, should be mixed to bio-methane. We think that the market will evolve quickly to bio NGV rather than just NGV.
We also, when we think to developing our position in India, where we are developing with Adani in the city gas, there is a good opportunity to develop and there is a governmental policy to develop CNG in India. The network we intend to build will be around CNG stations. Hydrogen, last but not least. Few positions in particular in Germany. We are part of the H2 Mobility ventures. There, we need to accelerate, and it's part of this new economy of hydrogen that Europe wants to establish. Total will be one of the player of this hydrogen economy. Last chart, but I will not be long because there, again, we will have zoom on electric mobility by Alexis and Philippe. The idea is fundamentally to take advantage of this emergence of this new business, huge growth, by two ways. Either to manufacture batteries together with PSA.
We have the expertise of Saft. On the other way is to establish ourselves as a leader on EV charging segments. You have probably noticed that we have some successes in large European cities, Amsterdam, Brussels, London now, where we have acquired half of the existing charging points in the city of London. I let Alexis developing that chart later. All these evolutions on the demand will translate into the ambition of Scope 1 and 2/3. This is the one announced in May about the lowering of carbon intensity of the energy products. I would just like to remind a comment on it, just to be clear again. It's because a small chart on the right, you all know that, but it's better to repeat.
When Total sells jet fuel to an airline company, and the airline company is using the jet fuel to make a flight on 1,000 km journey, it will emit 22 ton of CO2. This 22 ton of CO2 are in the Scope 1 of the airline company. They are also reported in the Scope 3 of Total, in the Scope 3 also of the plane manufacturer, in the Scope 3 of the engine manufacturer. I know that for many people, oil and gas companies are so responsible for all the Scope 3 emissions of the world. It's not the reality. What, more importantly, is that this chart for me is a symbol that if we want to tackle the aviation energy demand and challenge, it will have to be done together.
We have to make coalitions, and each company which is on this chart will have to bring its expertise to find solutions. Of course, the leaders will be each of these companies in their segments. Today, on the top of the make commitment, we have added what I've announced at the beginning of the presentation. The fact that the evolution of the sales pattern I just described by adapting or refining and all product fuels, more natural gas, more electricity will be translated in two commitments. One for Europe, -30% by 2030, on our way to net zero by 2050, and worldwide 2030 lower than 2015. I have finished all the dish. I go to the dessert, which is the last part, to speak about, okay, this is a strategy, broad energy company. We have some insights.
Let's see what it gives at the end of the day in terms of results. With two words, which are for me and for the board. It was the conclusion of our last board, by the way, by one of the board members. He say, "At the end, finally, it's a matter of resilience and a matter of growth, and to be able to combine both resilience and growth in developing Total and convincing investors." Of course, you know the fundamentals of resilience is based on these four pillars, HSE, Delivery, Cost, and Cash, that we repeat. It's well into action in the company. The cash breakeven is under EUR 25 per barrel in 2020. We intend to remain at that level. That's the basics when you are in a commodity business. We have to keep the discipline. It's clear, in particular, on capital investments.
This strategy, with the strategy we have announced, we spend a lot of time to review, of course, our five-year business plans. On one side, we need to give the space and enough CapEx to grow this renewable and electricity business. As I said, we want to grow the LNG business and to maintain our core activity, which will give us future cash flows. We came to the conclusion that we can do it with 2022, 2025. I will explain to you why I make an exception on 2021. At $13 billion, $16 billion, depending on the oil price, at $50 and $60. There is some flexibility. I think one of the lessons of last year, this year, it's dangerous to give very precise figures.
We have to be flexible and to keep some flexibility in the way we monitor our CapEx, like Arnaud and his teams are doing on the short cycle projects. We need to keep that in mind and not to over-commit ourselves. We have introduced a flow of $2 billion, as I said, for renewables and electricity. We said we will spend the $2 billion per year minimum, from 2021. In fact, it's exactly the amount we'll spend in 2020 on the farm, maybe a little more, we'll see, but we are in that range. With $13, $ 16 billion, we can develop the program I have presented to you. 2021 is a different approach. We don't want to launch a budget at $14 billion and then asking our teams in March to diminish it.
It's quite a burden for all our teams, what we have done this year to precise all the budgets around the world. We prefer to start, I would say, at a level which is cautious. I'm clear. It's coming from the top. Let's spend $12 billion. It's mainly organic cash flows because we also know that in these times, selling assets is not a very good time to sell assets. We don't want to lose value. We'll start and build our budget on around $12 billion. We'll see after the end of this exercise. We'll come back to you in February. Of course, if there was a quicker recovery, we'll be able to activate some of the short-term, short-cycle projects which are in the hand of Arnaud and his teams, which we put for the time being on the back burner.
When we think about CapEx, then OpEx, cost reduction, but clear that this year, we have accelerated, I would say, our saving programs. We announced in February $ 300. In April, we told you, $1 billion, we increase it. I can confirm to you that we are on the track to deliver the $1 billion of savings in 2020. Mobilization is very strong in the company. We have decided to raise the bar there also and to raise it by another $1 billion by 2023. Of course, it's more and more complex because the company is, I would say, well managed. To be honest with you, if you would ask me if I can lay off 5,000 people, I don't know where I would find them.
There is no way in Total. By the way, I'm still convinced that the best way to mobilize and if our teams today are delivering the $1 billion, is that we told them, okay, we don't frighten them by speaking about layoff. We told them, "You concentrate on delivering from your assets and delivering the cost savings. The company will be there. It's a matter of mutual support. Let's mobilize ourselves. We have the way to weather the storm." I think this is a strong message in the company. Again, yes, there might be rooms to streamline the headquarters, 10% maybe somewhere, but not more. Today, priority is more to continue to optimize operationally. Digital, we have launched last year, we presented to you that in February, some digital initiative. We didn't cut anything there.
We continue full speed to deliver this $1.5 billion value, which was proposed by promise by the teams. We have taken some immediate decision to freeze the recruitment, which is a way to save some cash. Of course, it cannot be long-term. Again, my message there is that we will deliver the billion and the extra billion by 2023. Coming to the end of the presentation, just to wrap up what we said about the production, which is feeding, again, the upstream production is key because, I would say, most of the cash flow is coming from this production. On the 2019-2025, we propose you a figure which is a little wrong. On an average, it will grow by 2% per year.
In fact, like we told you last year, there is a sort of plateau between 2019 and 2022, and the start of the ramp-up will go from 2023, in fact, 2023, 2024, 2025. This 2% per year, which make more or less 10%, or say, close to 12%, should be spread more about three years than on the five or six years which is there. It's just to give you. Of course, it's lower than last year, be clear. Last year we were thinking to acquire Algeria and Ghana assets from Algeria. We took the decision not to do it, because it was part of the, I would say, savings we had to do. We are lowering our ambition by 2025. We have also, as we described, a portfolio of opportunities which will allow us to grow our cash flows.
The quota impact has to be noticed as well. This is why I'm prudent on the coming years. This year, probably we'll end up by around 2.9 million barrel per day because, and it's good news, the OPEC countries and non-OPEC countries are really implementing the quota. It's good because it's supporting the price. Of course, the growth will mainly come from production from LNG, as I told you already. The growth is also helped by the fact that we have quite a low decline in our portfolio because of 50% of production is on long plateau. This results in growing cash flows, which is the blood of the company. This chart, you can see that last year, by the way, we told you we'll have $1 billion per year of extra cash flow.
This year we sum up at $5 billion because there again, it's difficult to speak of per year because the next year we propose you at $ 40. It's not linear. When we took the last 12 months, the average is 51, and the year 2025 of $50, and we compare the cash flow generated, the growth will be $5 billion at $50. This is the amount of additional cash flows. It will be different. It's not the same $5 billion than last year because we have less production on the upstream part, as I just said, but we have more electrons, and the electrons in the electricity business will deliver $1.5 billion. In fact, we are back to the $5 billion, but not in the same way.
We demonstrate, by the way, that this idea to drive the strategy, to accelerate the strategy to become a bold energy company, is delivering same type of results in terms of additional cash flows. You can see the sensitivity. Another comment on this chart, $40 per barrel. Why did we mention it there? Just to give you an indication on which basis we said that the board confirmed that we support the dividend at $40 per barrel. You can see that, by the way, if we are able to weather the storm at $40 per barrel, we will also benefit in the future years of the growth we are expecting from our businesses. This leads to this chart that you know very well. The cash flow allocation for Total did not change in order of priority. The first priority is capital investments.
We have adapted it to, I would say, the strategy. We just said $13 billion, $16 billion, 2020- 2025, more than $2 billion renewables and power. The second priority is supporting the dividend at $40 per barrel. I confirm you that after having done the five-year business plan, the board spent some time to look to various scenarios, confirmed the support. Then, of course, in this, I would say, difficult times, it's not easy to speak on the medium and long term. It would be premature to speak about growth, the next priority will be on the balance sheet that we also always said. Today, our gearing is going up, of course. It was under 20%, will be probably around 23% by the end of the year, I think, which is acceptable.
If we have additional cash flows, we will dedicate them after capital investments to de-leveraging the company and going back under 20%. This will be the next priority. If we have more, we'll have time to discuss, we'll be flexible, share buyback, dividend increase. Let's be clear, priority is today supporting the dividend, investing in the company according to the strategy, supporting the dividend at $40, and gearing under 20%. I know that for shareholders today, it's not only a matter of dividends and returns, cash returns, it's also a matter of ESG and a lot of you investors attach importance to this ESG commitment. A corporation like Total has to be a responsible company in all its dimension and to bring to society not only benefits and profits, but more than that.
I would first notice that Total has been this week designated by the UN Global Compact as a lead company. We are a lead company for the last three years, which is a good recognition of the efforts we do in that field. Of course, my whole presentation was about climate change, environment. The E of the ESG, I would say I covered it extensively during one hour. Net zero. We are publishing today our new climate report, the annual climate report at the same time. We have published yesterday an updated biodiversity policy because this is the other big challenge for the planet. I would say we are covering as much as we can, the E of the ESG part. The social is as much as important. I mentioned to you that we will go through this crisis with no big layoff.
Solidarity, mutual support is a real value as a company, and I think it's a demonstration of a social engagement. Safety was explained to you, presented to you by Arnaud. I would say a word about diversity. Gender equality in Total is a reality in terms of salary and pay, for sure. In terms of responsibility, we can progress. We have progressed, but we can progress more for international managers, for women as well. That's a focus of the group on which we have set some objectives as a management. The G, the governance, I would put first, remind you that last year, the fact that the board has submitted to the general assembly of shareholders, it was voted new bylaws, which gives a new duty to the board. It's in writing.
It was well done already to oversee social and environmental stakes. It's part of on each project, we take care to, the board is very interested to understand the conditions in which all these social and environmental stakes are taken into account as a project we submit for approval. In terms of governance, I am chairman and CEO, like traditionally in the French companies, we have a lead independent director, which is quite engaged. It was Patricia Barbizet. Now, it's Marie-Christine Coisne-Roquette, she's directly engaged with shareholders, she will have some more chose herself independently as a chairman and CEO, she will report to the board, it's very lively. Last but not least, about governance, my compensation is linked not only to climate, also to ESG indicators.
I think this ESG approach is well embedded in the model and the governance of the company. That's the last slide, coming to the end. Again, summarizing, I would say the compelling investment case that is TotalEnergies. What we offer to you today is on one side, to transform TotalEnergies into a broad energy company, which we're really taking on board the commitments on the carbon, getting to carbon neutrality with a strong commitment on Scope 3 absolute targets. We will grow, but on the same time, we'll be able to tackle the dual challenge. Growing on one side, profitably of course, while decreasing emissions, more energy and less carbon. You have noticed that this will come from LNG and renewables. Of course, at the same time, we are offering that strategy to this concept of broad energy company, profitable broad energy company.
We offer to investors a high yield dividend, I can say. We intend to support it as much as we can. This, I think, and the board is convinced, that what we call TotalEnergies with a big S, is a real compelling investment case which should support stock rerating. Thank you for your attention. I propose that we'll go to the Q&A.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen. The first question comes from the line of Jon Rigby from UBS. Please ask your question.
Thank you. Hello, Patrick. A couple questions. The first is on the, getting some sort of assurance around the investment that's now going into the renewable space. I can see the strategic rationale. It's clear. You do talk about it being lower risk. I think there's clear examples in the past, you are one of them with SunPower, for instance, where it's clear that the company entering a new area of operation doesn't fully understand all the risks that they are dealing with. That's not an accusation to yourself. I think others have found the same issues. What I wanted to ask was, is to what degree and what assurance can you give us that you are comfortable that the risks you're taking, you have been able to sort of incorporate into your planning?
I'm sort of very struck by what looks like increasing sort of conventional wisdom that 5% or 6% return on assets can be grossed up to a 10%+ return on equity in a increasingly competitive environment. Just wonder if you could just talk about that in the round. The second is if you're correct, however, I'm struck by the capital structure you described at the end. Driving gearing back down below 20%, reiterating the dividend. Does the capital structure and the way that you deal with capital going forward, change as the business mix changes through the 2020s? Thank you.
Jon, I think that, first on renewables again, Philippe will come back extensively. I think that we are engaged in this business not from today. We made some mistakes. The first investments in SunPower was not the best idea. Since 2016, we have built teams who have invested in Total Eren in a minority position to learn, to better understand, to evaluate, to see, because Total Eren is driven by experts in renewables. The CEO was the previous CEO of EDF Energies Nouvelles, which is one of the success leader of the build. We have made that investment. We have made some direct investments and recruited people and, I can tell you that, the executive committee of Total, which is meeting every two weeks and where we approve all investments above $ 20 million.
We have, I think, every week now renewable projects. We learn, and so it's accelerating. That's things that, of course, we are asking more and more comfortable. If today, I am able, for the first time in front of you, to tell you, yes, we embark in this board, it's a new strategy, and we are able, I use the word transform. We have ambitions that put in terms of net production of the equivalent of 500,000 barrels per day and 200 in five years, 1,000 barrels per day. It's because as the CEO and with executive committee, we have the feeling that we analyze the risk of those projects.
By the way, it's true that we have to anticipate what does it mean, an electricity market in Spain, for example, where you will have so many solar plants, intermittence, going to the grid, all producing when the sun is at the top and less when there is in the night. There will be, of course, an intraday volatility, which could be huge, which by the way, means that it's why the word storage appears in the presentation. We have, remember, quite sold with the idea that it will be helpful to develop energy storage capacities in the future to develop this renewable business. It's clear that the electricity world, not only for Total, for everybody, will offer new patterns with new risks.
It's why, by the way, we need to be very strong as well, developing our trading teams to be able to interconnect the market and to deliver the value out and to manage that risk. If today we are able to shape a strategy and to show you some figures and to give you some objective, five years is not far from there, it's tomorrow, is because we consider that we have a good understanding. I would not have done that presentation even one year ago. We have, again, accelerated and our teams are delivering to us more and more projects. That's the first question. Honestly, on the return target, I don't lie to you, Jon. I can tell you as the model works, of course. To be clear, it works because there is today very low interest rates in the market. It's clear.
I will tell you, if interest rates are coming up again, the project will not be developed at 5%, then we need more, not only for Total, but for the competitors. That's clear that today you are in a specific situation where you can leverage these very low interest rates, and at the end, all the equity we engage, and the 10 gigawatts projects we have announced this year, have a return of 10%. It's a minimum, because in India it was 13%, in Japan 20%, I mentioned. You have more. There is no miracle. It's just the situation of having access, I would say, to finance with very low interest rates. I don't know if that capital structure has changed as business changed.
The balance sheet and sort of payout.
Question, honestly, I'm not sure to have captured it.
Oil and gas.
Sorry?
The sort of follow-up was the capital structure, the idea of where you want gearing to go, where you see the dividend is sort of couched still in very much in sort of oil and gas major terms. Is that going to still be the case, or would you look at different capital structure models as you go forward because the business model changes?
Yeah. To be clear, Jon, I think we cannot shift from one day to the other. I'm convinced that we are today, our challenge, is to convince the investors that the model we propose, which is to create this multi-energy company, this broad energy company, having some, on one side, oil and gas and electricity and renewable is viable, and that we can develop. We need time to do that. Again. To the time, I think what we think is the best position for this transformation, for us as an oil and gas major, that we still are and we intend to remain. We don't enter into a decrease of our oil and gas business, even if we stabilize in 2030, oil production could be a little lower. This is not what we offer. I think we are offering to investors two things.
On one side, a dividend higher because it's a way to tell us give us time to do that, and we'll continue and trust us and give us the time. At the same time, allow us to reinvest part of the cash flows in growing this renewable and power business. It's premature today to say what you propose to change the payout, et cetera. Again, we do it because we consider that we can do it in the financial balance of the group, of the company. This was the whole exercise we have done since the last six months, to understand at which pace should we invest in order to grow according to our ambitions.
With the structure of capital and spending we said, we can, at the same time, offer this, I would say, maybe unique model, but we want to offer to the market and to investors a high dividend, and at the same time, giving us the time and the money to change the pattern of the company.
Thank you. Thanks, Patrick.
Thank you. The next question comes from line of Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley. Please ask your question.
Yeah. Hi. Hello. I had two, if I may. The first one is about expressing your total energy production in that figure of petajoule per day, which I really appreciate and I think is hugely interesting. We ourselves have done some analysis on expressing the financials of a broad range of energy companies per unit of energy, per joule. One of the things that struck me in this analysis is that if you look at companies that are more in the renewable space or the utility space, that their capital employed or their CapEx budgets per unit of energy, per joule, are hugely higher. They're about 4x or 5x higher than oil and gas, which is already a capital-intensive industry.
Now, going through these numbers, I then thought, well, frankly, if the capital intensity is so much higher, maybe we should just expect that over time, the total energy output of companies like Total and your peers, that they will actually just shrink, i.e., there's only so much CapEx that goes around. If you move into a more capital-intensive area, maybe just keeping up total energy output might just be simply too challenging. Today, you're presenting a contrary view to it in the sense that not only are you talking about total energy production going up, but then seemingly also moving into these very capital-intensive areas. We often have discussions about what are the returns that lie on the other side of all these investments.
The transition itself is also quite interesting in the sense that it suggests quite a large CapEx hump, a period of very rapidly rising capital intensity. I recognize that this is quite a long-winded way of asking, in principle, a relatively simple question. Are you sure that $13 billion-$16 billion in capital expenditure is really enough to make the changes to the business mix that you propose? Rising TotalEnergies output in more capital-intensive areas. Is $13 billion-$16 billion really enough for that in the long run?
For the next five years, the way we have done it, I can tell you it's a clear approach, where we looked to what is the amount of equity we need to inject in all our renewable projects in order to grow. We have made it, and we know because we have, again, various models between the Indian projects, the Spanish projects, the French ones. Today, we have various models. We are able to have a mix and to have a good evaluation of what will be required. As I said, to grow at this pace that we propose to reach the 35 GW by 2025, we need $ 2 billion+ , I would say. We put that as a floor.
We look also to the rest of the company, to look to what can be arbitrated or not without impairing, of course, the cash flow of the company. The results that we gave you are a clear, I would say, bottom-up approach of the organic CapEx that we need. There are assumptions about acquisition and divestments, which are giving you the global capital investment. Yes, I'm confident that with this figure, and again, it's clear that's the advantage of being not a utility, but maybe an oil and gas company is that we have a leverage on the oil price. Is the price going up again? It will go up again. We'll have extra cash that we can allocate in order to monitor this CapEx. Why we give you a range.
Yes, I'm confident that we can stick within the $13 billion-$16 billion range. It's also true that doing that, we have made some arbitration in some segments, in line with the oil strategy, I would say. We revise the oil assets that we have, not only in upstream, in downstream as well, to say, okay, what do we want to do in these segments? How much do we allocate of capital? Because the demand will change, so why should we invest in many retail networks if we think the world demand will lower? That's question mark. There are some arbitration behind it in line with the strategy. No, I'm confident on it.
I think on the first point, again, I try to spend a lot of time myself, I can tell you, with Helle together, to read the reports of all our competitors in the utilities competitors, financials, to better understand the metrics. Because we wanted to make a presentation where we could find the metrics, which could be consistent. To be honest, the notion of CapEx is maybe not exactly the same than us there. I have the impression they take the full CapEx, I would say the gross CapEx, we take the net CapEx. When we give you a CapEx figure, this is the equity part we take into our CapEx figure. Of course, the off-balance sheet is not in the CapEx figure. Of course, that means that the off-balance sheet of Total will grow. From this perspective, we have a robust balance sheet, I would say.
At a certain point of time, it will not go in infinity because you will recircle your leverage. Once your projects have been delivered, after six, seven, eight years, you are recirculating the same amount of balance sheet commitment. I would say that's the way we look at it. I'm pleased that you support the petajoule per day approach. I hope that all your peers, which are participating in the call, will do the same.
Thank you.
To be honest, I have difficulties here to transfer all that. Okay. Next question.
Yeah, next question comes from the line of Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. Please ask your question.
Thank you, Patrick, and I will get used to petajoules as well. Two questions, if I could. The first one on the tech center that you're establishing. Can you just walk me through how is that different to the digitalization factory that we were talking about back in February? Does this build on that, or are they two completely separate areas? Then the second one is, and it links a little bit back to Jon's question earlier. There is a lot of change within Total. You are accelerating that change.
How do you prepare the organization to perhaps move more quickly than it has in the past? For example, you talked about Africa and wanted to build up the renewables capacity there. How do you do that quickly enough now? Effectively, does that decision-making process need to change from what it has been historically? Thanks.
Okay. The first one, no, it's different, Lydia. Maybe I'm not being clear. The digital factory is purely dedicated to digital. Of course, it's working for all the divisions and upstream refining, chemical marketing, and so it's established. It's a new tool. 200 engineers going to 300 engineers. We don't want to disturb them. It's brand new. We'll let them work. They might be later in the future, we'll see. We don't want to disturb them. They have to deliver. We have some, I would say, a roadmap of many business cases, which are, by the way, given to them by the assets, not by the technical divisions. Of course, you can think we can merge everything. This one we can protect because we have a clear objective for delivering value by 2023, 2025, and we want to build it to raise it.
Maybe later we'll see if we need to bring. The technical center we want to create, the OneTech concept, is really to take all the divisions which are supportive of operations and projects in E&P and Refining and Chemicals, in marketing, there are more, not so many, and in Gas, Renewables, Power, there are quite minimum, but there are quite a lot. There are some hidden competencies somewhere in the various subsidiaries. To bring all together in order to be able, again, to use existing competencies to build these industrial bases for Gas, Renewables, and Power. Also for, I would say, training, helping them in terms of evolution of competencies. That's a different approach. Again, the idea is to have a core center and, I would say, to use the existing competence to build our Renewables and Power business. Philippe, you take the second one.
Renewables in Africa. What do we need to do? I will tell you what we need to do is to change the regulators of electricity in Africa.
Yeah. Clearly, as it was stated, there is a real potential of developing the renewables in Africa because mainly with solar, we can compensate for the lack of development of the grid and there is a lot of sun. Having said that, these are costly projects. Yes, they are capital intensive, and so we need to have a stable scheme in order to invest on a profitable and safe basis. Therefore, yes, the negotiations are taking place with various governments in this continent. There are some small projects that are now being developed. We have some plants already in South Africa. There are some under development in other countries. Yes, this still takes time because, yes, we want to develop this business on a profitable basis.
Your question is good, Lydia. Just to add something. I think until now we have developed renewable business, I would say, as a separate teams. Many teams and trying to answer, as I answered to Jon, to better understand the business. To Africa, for example, it's Total Eren, which is in charge of Africa, which has its own objective. It's clear that in Africa, honestly, I was joking, but we face, in fact where we were trying to make gas to power plants. I remember in Nigeria, I think Arnaud has worked hard on this type of project like myself. We face the fact that unfortunately, financing a power business in Africa is quite challenging. In fact, we could hope that with renewables, which are smaller project it could face, we could solve the issues, but it takes some time because people are not prepared, in fact.
That's a challenge. I think also that the signal, because today is a very important day. As I said, we have announced to attain the concept of OneTech. I think a lot of my employees, I think around the world are listening to what we say. I'm convinced that there is a signal there that these renewables and power are absolutely part of the business model of Total. When we'll go tomorrow, I've been in Angola, so I can say because there our MD is already taking care of our solar projects. When we go in all these countries, it will be obvious for management locally that they have the right, even if they are in charge of E&P, to look to renewable projects and with driving force and maybe we'll go quicker. I think the message would be enthusiastic.
What we've done in Qatar as well has been on the same source of philosophy. My view is that the signal is launched today that yes, we are embarking in this strategy on a worldwide basis. I'm sure more and more ideas will come and people will embark into because they are all willing to contribute to this climate change challenge.
Your next question comes from the line of Oswald Clint from Sanford C. Bernstein. Please ask your question.
Patrick, thank you very much. Thank you for the tasty menu. I wanted to ask the first question on integration across the electricity value chain as well, but more specifically on the final side of it, the customer side. I want to get your thoughts whether you think you need to have more big customer and partnerships to really maximize the value in this chain. You talk about retail customers in Europe, but I wanted to say, do you think that's enough? You should be focusing as well on some of these big global corporates, like for example, some of these tech companies and just offering them global power contracts that utilities can't. I know you have 60% of your customers in Europe, and that's your base, but there's a lot of competitors there also trying to sell them clean power. That's the first question.
Secondly, it's good to see the conviction around the gas and LNG. I wanted to zoom in on India. A lot of LNG import growth in LNG expected in India. You have a position there with Adani, but little bit tricky for us to see just how profitable that LNG value chain is in India. The Indians clearly very good at getting low LNG prices. I wonder if you could perhaps share a little bit of color around that LNG supply chain as it relates to India, please. Thank you.
The first one, let's be clear, with Philippe as well, we are working with the same big companies. These big tech companies are very good to make competition. Today they want to sell the cloud to Total. They are selling the cloud to my colleagues, and saying sections of the cloud, they are ready to take 60 MW of solar plants, which is not enough. We have this type of discussion, obviously. You have noticed probably that we have done something, last week, Philippe will come back on it in his presentation, something quite original. We have signed to ourselves, it's ourself, the largest corporate PPA between solar plants in Spain and all our European plants in the company.
That means that we have designed a model where, and the intent is to offer it to big corporations, that we have done it for ourselves, so we know if we can manage the risks of such a contract. The idea today, of course, is not to need to do it with Total, but we have done it for us and to go, and we have some discussions, to be clear, corporate levels, at high corporate levels. Sometimes CEOs are involved themselves. There is a lot of companies, not only the tech ones, who are willing to green their electricity. Everybody's committing today to carbon neutrality. This is a business which will lead to what you call corporate PPAs, which will probably be the next wave of ones. On these ones, yes, we are willing to develop partnerships.
At the end, partnerships, they are big words, at the end, it's what do you sell to me and what do you buy to me? It's a bit clear. I like partnership. None of them wants to be really, I think, in the end, on only one supplier. None of them, even if they like to establish monopoly, they don't want to be in the end of a monopoly in front of them. Again, that's clear. It's part of it. That, by the way, it's back to something on which, I don't know, maybe Philippe will come back on it. It's all what we call the solar distributed generation business, which is not big solar farms, I think Philippe will come back on it in his presentation. I will leave it to him. India, LNG, value chain.
India, clearly, we see high growth even in 2020. We see a very high growth in India, which is becoming one of the largest LNG markets. Development is already relating in India. You have to be aware that we have been in India since now 15 years when we were partnering with Shell and Hazira. We know exactly the behavior of the Indian customers. We have never been selling under the market price, I can tell you, in India. What is clear is that when the prices are low, we are selling more LNG than when the prices are high. Across the years, we've managed to fill Hazira and to make profit during years. With the partnership that we have with Adani, with the fact that now, yes, we will be players inside India and we see room for optimization and for profitable growth.
We are confident that, yes, we can combine growth and profitability in India.
Your next question comes from the line of Thomas Adolff from Credit Suisse. Please ask your question.
Good afternoon. Two questions from me as well. Just going back to the beautiful charts on renewable generation and how you're showing the target IRRs of more than 10%. I believe this time last year, you presented it as at least 15%, including farm outs. Looks like a bit of a downgrade here. Or are we talking about a wider range across the different geographies you've entered since? The second question is relating to your credit rating, and correct me if I'm wrong. Single A is probably the minimum acceptable to operate your business effectively. If my numbers are correct, your credit metrics were consistent with the Single A rating in 2019, around 44% funds from operation to adjusted net debt.
You are below the 30% threshold in 2020 and probably less than 25%, at least on my numbers, using Brent at $40 and assuming cash flow after interest of $1 5 billion, $16 billion. If we assume you pay your dividend 100% cash and no script, and that's $8 billion, CapEx is $13 billion, oil stays at $40, and refining margins don't recover as you assume, how do you drive it back to 30% in the next few years if asset sales are also difficult? Thank you very much.
I will leave to Jean-Pierre. He can answer the second question, Jean-Pierre.
Yes. Credit rating. As you know, Moody's and S&P dramatically changed their price deck. It was in March or April after the drop in oil prices. At this time, we were able to maintain our rating. The change was the perspective. We were before stable, now we have a negative outlook. I just see, I think it was mid-September, that S&P maintained its outlook for 2021 and 2022 at $50 per barrel for the price deck, and $40, by the way, for 2020. At this level, I do not see any reason, given the resilience that Patrick mentioned to you, to be downgraded. Having this strong discipline regarding our gearing, having this target to maintain the gearing around 20%, I think will protect our credit rating, and I think that it will be well received by the agencies.
Okay. At the same time, you know that means, you are right, it was September 2019 when last year I was looking to the presentation because I had always in mind my 10%. That means that to come back to the question of Yann, we have learned in the year, and we realized that if we wanted to be successful to get some projects, we have to accept the target to have a 10%. At 10%, we are successful, I can tell you. This is what I mentioned during my speech. That at 10%, we have been able to get the projects and to put them in our portfolio. That means that this is the right metrics that we need to consider if we want to develop a business.
The ambition last year, maybe it was because we had more Japanese projects in our head than some Spanish projects, I would say, over areas. The metrics I gave you today, I can tell you that at this level, we are competitive. In fact, let's be clear, it's always the case. If you go to be competitive in a super Middle East tender where you have everybody's coming, I can tell you at 10%, you are not winning. By the way, in Abu Dhabi, we lost. We win in Qatar. We're different. The idea is like always in the business, is to try to have direct negotiation. What is done in Spain, having access to three pipelines of one plus one plus three gigawatts, direct negotiations.
If that means that you need to have smart teams on the ground, you don't operate that from Paris. That means that, in fact, that's, I would say what could limit or the ambition is that what I observe is that in renewable electricity, you all know that it's a national approach that you need to have, national regulators. To identify the good opportunities, you don't do that with bankers in Paris, which always come to you with the big M&As. If you want to be smart, you have to have teams. We have a good team. I can pay tribute to them in Spain. That's clear. I think the more if we want to continue to grow, we'll have to put the teams in the various countries where we think there is a development to be done.
Clearly, we'll establish something in the U.S. coming because there is, of course, big company, but you have plenty of opportunities in the U.S. as well. That's something. Last comment for you, Thomas, is that's true that the returns are lower than for oil and gas. Yes, the risks are not the same as well. When you sign a PPA, which guarantees our revenue during 15 years in oil and gas, I have nobody which is giving me a predictable revenue. That's chicken and egg. Again. I will not come back to you with lowering my 10% next year.
Thank you.
Yeah, next question comes from the line of Irene Himona from Societe Generale. Please ask your question.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Patrick, I'm looking at the priorities two and four of the cash allocation, dividend, and buyback. You used to communicate in terms of the proportion of cash flow that was right in the previous strategy to return to investors. Today, you told us the dividend supported at $40, gearing to come down. During this transformation period, and given your view that lack of investment may very well push prices towards $ 50 and $ 60, but of course, you need to continue to invest in low carbon. In this transformation period, what is the right proportion of cash flow that, assuming you de-lever the balance sheet, would be correct to return to investors? Thank you.
I'm not sure I even expressed in this presentation a percentage of return of cash flows. Having said that, honestly, this was a difficult part. I made an introductory comment of coming to you today. You can understand that in these times where we are today, already Total and the board of Total is quite bold by confirming and repeating that we suppose a dividend of $40. At the same time, all our competitors, at least in Europe, have just given up on the dividend. I think it's already a strong signal to investors that we are ready to maintain a higher dividend, even if, as I said, the board is expecting some stock rerating thanks to that policy. Going beyond, and at the same time, we do it, but it's true that we are using the balance sheet as we are increasing the gearing.
That means that the board is, because it's seen the figures, the resilience of the company, is ready to support, but at the same time is thinking that the priority will be, and nobody knows how long it will be, I would say, to come back to a normal environment and getting out of this pandemic and this world crisis. Going beyond what we said, you need quite a short-term and long-term view. I think what we told you today is already a strong message. The other strong message we gave you is that we will increase by $5 billion of cash flows in the same $50 environment between this year and 2025. Obviously, the matter will be to allocate this capital.
Again, first, you can make the math, at $50, we need the additional cash flow to de-risk the company, and we'll be under 20% by 2025, more or less. At $60, the question will be sensible. This is why we put on the same chart that we can be flexible at higher prices. That's not so easy to commit on the long term with such metrics. I prefer, I know that some of the peers have done it, but they have first cut the dividends. For the time being, we are concentrated on maintaining the dividends. I think it's the best message we can deliver to our shareholders.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from the line of Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. Please ask your question.
Thank you. Thank you, Patrick, for the clear vision on decarbonization growth and improved profitability. I have two questions, if I may. The first one is, if I can come back to cash return to shareholders. Clearly, Total stands out for having maintained the dividend through the crisis. When I look forward at the numbers, the dividend yield effectively is costing you, right now, about 9%, and the cost of debt post-tax is less than 2%. I perfectly understand the importance of a strong balance sheet, but given this complete difference between the cost of capital effectively that your investors are charging you versus the cost of debt, wouldn't it make more sense, perhaps, to focus on buybacks rather than financial de-gearing at this juncture?
A second question, perhaps a little bit niche, but when I think about your Refining and Chemical business, you are moving away from mega projects, mega plants of refining and petrochemicals towards smaller ones focused on biofuels and biochemicals, which are more local, and where the economics really are driven by the local logistics of collecting and delivering waste in an effective way. I was wondering, do you think you have the right capabilities in-house for it? Do you think you need to change the way that business is run for this future reality with a bigger share of biofuels and biochemicals? Thank you.
Okay. I take your point, buyback rather than de-gearing. I think, again, with the experience to manage an oil and gas company with volatility, I think honestly, we are sure that I'm convinced that we'll see higher cycles, but after the higher cycles, we'll lower cycles. If we want to have a steady return policy to our shareholder, it's much better to, I would say, to have the capacity to weather the storms like we are trying to do it today, like we are doing it today, by the way. It's a matter of trust. I understand the math that you mentioned, and the board has discussion about it, to be honest. That's true, but today it would be nonsense to go looking for equity from our shareholders.
I prefer Jean-Pierre to go on the bond markets and maybe even the green bond markets that he needs to tackle. This is the next challenge. With all what we have announced, I think it will not be so complex to convince bankers to issue green bonds markets today with the Total or sustainable bond markets, will next step for us. That's true. Again, my message to you is that with all what we have announced, what the board is expecting is a rerating of the stock, and so the yield should diminish. That's a good answer. Then buybacks might be an option. The big debate, and it's why it's written like that, will be if you have additional cash, buyback is probably better than increasing largely the dividend like it was envisaged in the future.
The second one, I would say, no, let me be clear, don't make a mistake. First, it is not because we are focused the presentation today on biofuels, but Bernard has abandoned the large Amiral project with Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia, which is progressing very well. We have all the allocation from the ministry. It is not abandoned. Having said that, it is true, Michele, you understand, but Total will not build a new refinery elsewhere in the world. It is clear. It is out of us. We still have some petrochemical projects in Saudi Arabia, in Korea, the Korean platform, that is the core of it. The biorefinery. A question for Bernard is, do you need more different competencies for biorefining? I would say that on bioplastics, honestly, my polymer business people are very accustomed to the size of plants. We have done a first plant in Thailand.
Bernard, about competence and capabilities on these niche markets, what do you think?
One of the answers is the fact that we are going to slightly change the organization by creating a biofuels business unit with dedicated resources. That will be a team which will be focused entirely on biorefinery and growing the business in Europe and outside of Europe. Which, of course, requires certainly a different set of skills than conducting large petrochemical projects. We can lead the two strategies, I would say, both growing large platforms in petchems and at the same time, yes, growing high value-added niches like biorefineries.
No, Michele has given you a good idea, which is to go and recruit some people in one of the good competitors in biofuels.
They are welcome.
To strengthen your new business unit. Okay. Again, I think, Michele, the size of the projects that we have in these biofuels and bioproducts are on the size of the polymer plant. We have in the company our chemical guys or so Belgium's part of the company is able to build this type of small plant, I think.
Yeah.
Not the French one. They love the large projects. Next question.
Your next question comes from the line of Lucas Herrmann from Exane. Please ask your question.
Good afternoon. Thank you. two questions, if I might, Patrick, regarding the renewables business. Maybe one of them is a little unfair at this stage, but the first was just on PPAs. Can you give us an idea as to all the projects you're developing, what proportion of the output typically is PPA covered? The second is, when you talk about 120 TW hours of electricity or electrons into the future, can you give us any idea as to how you'd expect the end markets for those electrons to split? How much do you think will go to EV? How much might go to hydrogen? How much retail? How much corporate? I'm sure you looked at the different value chains and opportunities, but just for us to get some sense of what are the markets that are going to be according value to the different streams.
That's it. Thanks, Patrick.
The first question is easy. The second one is for Philippe. I love the questions of Lucas. No, the first one is clear because according to what I just described to you, the instruction given to our teams is we want to cover with a 100% PPA. Having said that, it is clear that we have done one first exception with our entrance into the Seagreen offshore wind project in Scotland. Where, by the way, it was a long discussion, I can tell you, with SSE. They wanted to sell us 40% PPA, 60% project, and we said, no, we want at least 70% and 30%, knowing that we agree together that the last tranche of production could be, we will submit it to the next round for CfD in the U.K.
It's clear that this, we had yesterday again, another discussion with our teams, which jumped into a 70%/30% business model, and we told them at the executive committee level, don't go too straight, because again, what we like in renewables is not only the volume, but is the predictability of the revenue. This is what we'll explain tomorrow to our investors. If you begin to go too quickly in merchant, I think it might be okay. I think our objective, just honestly, is to maximize the level of PPAs. We can accept some, two times maybe 30%, but not more, as we have done it once, but a sort of metrics. The second question, I'll leave it to Philippe, because I know he knows everything about the math.
Thank you, Lucas, for this question. I'm not sure that I have the right answer. What you should bear in mind is that even if, of course, we spend a lot of time developing new markets such as the EV and green hydrogen for the time being, which will remain a very limited part of the worldwide market for electricity and worldwide production. If I had to give you a guesstimate, I would say that it will be some, let's say, 2%-3% for hydrogen and maybe a bit more for EV. Clearly, the bulk of our production will still into the near 2030 will go to, I would say, the overall power market.
It's, yeah, I fully support the answer, despite it's a complex one. It's probably 45 retail, 45 corporate, and then EV and hydrogen. Honestly, EVs, Alexis will speak about it, but when we look at the end to what does it represent to have 15,000 or 20,000 charging points in cities, it does not consume a lot, to be honest. If you want to make money, it's not only through electrons. You have to offer the service part of it, but Alexis will come back on that. Okay, next question.
Just coming back on the PPA question. Can I just follow up on PPA? You mentioned earlier you spent a lot of time looking at your utility brethren and how they report, et cetera. They also have a tendency to give a fair indication of what the PPA levels and terms are. Might we expect that you will give better indication into the future of what the PPA terms are so we have a better idea of what revenues are?
We might consider give you all the data sheets of Total, but maybe not. We see. I'll take the point, Lucas, and I will ask my colleagues to make a benchmark on these utility companies disclosure, and we'll look at it. What I propose, Ladislas, is that we take a last question or two before we'll stop to go to the Zoom because we have another session of Q&A, and I'm afraid otherwise, we will extend until midnight. I propose to stop at 4:30 P.M. like it was planned. Maybe let's take two questions before to stop, then we'll move on the Zoom by Philippe, then we have another session of Q&A. Who's next?
Your next question comes from the line of Bertrand Härdi from Cathexis. Please ask your question.
Yes. Thank you for taking my question. In fact, the question I had was exactly the same as Lucas in terms of PPA and American exposure. Maybe I'll try to find another one, which is, in fact, when I look at your 2025 guidance for low carbon contribution, should I understand that in fact, there is no implicit electricity price or merchant price built into that assumption and as you are, in a way, fully secured by the PPA. Is that a correct statement?
Exactly that. It's exactly that, because, by the way, the Seagreen project, which is the only merchant for 30%, will not produce in 2025. It's exactly that. You're right. You have found a solution. Next question. Bertrand, don't worry, we'll take all the questions from everybody. It's just a matter of time. Next question.
Your next question comes from the line of Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America. This will be our last question for now.
Thank you very much. Could I squeeze in two questions, please? The first one, hopefully quick. Patrick, you were referring to counter-cyclical M&A. I wondered, in that $ 13 billion-$16 billion, how big a role net acquisitions play. You already mentioned that the $12 billion or below $12 billion next year is largely organic, but just wondered whether you could break down your view of organic spend versus inorganic. My second question is a bit more philosophical, which is, if you look at the renewable space, you've obviously got your own listed subsidiary in SunPower. You witness that free cash flow yields are pretty meaningless in terms of valuation metrics. EBITDA multiples or price to cash flow multiples trade at a multiple higher compared to where the Total group listing gets you today.
I wonder how you think around communicating better with different metrics that speak to the renewables growth, which according to your own presentation today, will remain free cash flow negatives for the foreseeable future. I wonder how you're thinking around that problem and whether indeed you think allowing the equity markets to have a clearer view, in the way that you have an independent listing for SunPower is the way forward. Thank you.
On the first question, if I remember, the balance between acquisition divestment is around $ 1 billion maximum. That means that there is much of the CapEx, we are organic and there is a plus and minus, which is $1 billion extra. Of course, it's linked to the possibility to divest, but this is the metrics we have put in this business plan. If we want to acquire more, we'll have to divest more. That's clear. That's the first point. On the second one, we try to communicate on it. Maybe not enough. I know that maybe it's not good to show that it's cash flow negative, but all of these renewable companies are cash flow negative, by the way, it doesn't matter.
The question is, of course, to, I think, what we try, and what we have begun to do today, and we'll have to do more, of course, is if we want to embed in the valuation of Total, the valuation of the size of this renewable company. Which compare, when we speak about 35 GW compared to a lot of these independent renewables company, which are much smaller, have huge valuation. We need to give clarity on what we are doing, that's clear, to attract these multiples also on this part of Total. That's a challenge. Yes, we intend, I would say, to give a step-by-step clarity on what we do, and I think it was a first step, and you have a slide where we have figures. Should we go to IPO or what is very premature? It's not at all what I explained to you.
I just explained to you during one hour that what we intend to do is to build a broad energy company, and again, being able to have in the same company, on one side, the oil and gas business, on the other side, the renewables and power business. We want to convince that this model, because, again, we are the renewables and power business is benefiting from the cash flows coming from the oil and gas business. We have a good engine to make that transition. We want to really take time to convince the market that this is the right model. If we don't succeed, we'll see. By the way, as you said, when we are building such a portfolio of renewable business, it will not be difficult if we think it's the best options to go in another way.
It's not what we intend to do for the next five years.
Okay. Thank you.
That is Ladislas for the views. Again, to all the ones who have questions, don't worry, we'll take all the questions, but after the three next Zoom.
All right, so thank you for this first set of questions. Now we are entering the second part of the afternoon with the focus presentations. We'll start with Philippe, with a presentation on renewables.
Okay, good afternoon to all. My challenge is to convince you that we are ambitious, but we are not dreamers. Let's start by the dream and by reminding you of the market and the growth that we see on this global solar and wind market. This year, we have seen, even with the COVID, a 15% growth. This growth is clearly geared to continue with the greening of the planet and the carbon neutrality ambition that have been announced. The lion's share of this growth will be for solar. We see solar as being the cheapest technology in many countries around the world. Knowing that, of course, they are other technology of interest, and wind offshore in particular, for which we feel that we have a unique competitive advantages, should represent in 2030 around 200 gigawatts, so 5% of the overall market.
What also is important to be noticed is the fact that around 80% of the growth is concentrated in four different areas. China, for sure, which will represent more or less 40% of the growth. Europe being number two, with, of course, the European Green Deal, gearing up the market to high growth. In India and U.S. at approximately the same level, 10% of the growth. No surprise if we are focusing our development. Not forgetting, of course, other continents, South Africa, where we are also a unique advantage still to be developed. Clearly, those four areas are the one on which we will have the greatest share of our business. One reminder about also our history in those businesses. Yes, it was reminded that we invested in SunPower 2011. That was not maybe the greatest investment that we made. We learned from this investment.
We started our new ambition to become the responsible energy major, we created the Gas Renewables, and Power branch in 2016. We are very clear that we are more or less starting with a blank sheet. We needed to have first competencies, talents, assets. There was no hesitation for us that we needed to make some strategic acquisition. This what remained, you all remember this acquisition of Saft, of Direct Énergie, of Quadran, just to mention the most important. What we see today, what you see on this chart in 2020, is that the growth and the number of deals is clearly accelerating. It is accelerating just because, as Patrick mentioned, we have now teams that are competent enough to fuel our growth with ideas, with what I would call semi-organic growth.
This is giving us a lot of opportunities that we can exceed on a very low cost of entry. What is also very clear is that most of this deal, in term of number, now is focused around renewables. Among the 12 deals of 2020, 10 are around renewables. Where do we stand today after those four years? We could say, and I'm saying it, I think that our renewable business is starting, just starting, but is starting to reach a critical size when we compare to the leaders. When I mean the leaders, clearly the utilities, because all competitors are far from being at this level today. We are starting now to have significant assets, significant team.
We are positioned on all high growth markets because we are a large company, we have a large ambition, and we can afford to be on several of this market. The solar farm, which bring size and low cost of producing electricity. What we call the solar distributed generation, and we'll come back on that because it is not, of course, the most well-known part of our business, but it delivers high growth and higher profit because of higher barrier of entry. Wind onshore, of course, which is a needed complement because there are countries where there are a lot of wind, but not so much sun. Wind offshore, which is, of course, the area where we are willing to grow on the basis of our core competencies that the utilities clearly do not have for all of them, at least.
Batteries, we made the acquisition of Saft, one of the world leader of this technology, and we are among the few participants of this segment. 2020, end of 2020, we will have already 70 W of asset in operation. It start to be meaningful. Of course, it is small at the scale of Total, but in the world of renewable, I can tell you that it is very significant already. The dynamic that we have now is not only limited, of course, to those assets in operation, because we have also a project under construction, and I will show you in a minute some of the most significant. We have also identified late-stage development project, and that we are confident that can be developed among the next, and clearly before 2025.
This is why Patrick was mentioning that our former objective of last year, 25 GW in 2025, even if it was easy to memorize, is clearly something that it is too easy for the team to achieve. We had to set a new target, and this is why we decided to have this 35 GW. It means that we have more or less 10 GW to identify, and based on what is our track record today, we have little hesitation that we can do it, limiting ourself, of course, to only profitable opportunities. Some example where we are. The first country, of course, today, is our own country, France, and where we acquired Quadran. Quadran was, and is still now one of the main renewable developer in France. It was raised in 2014, so there's already in this company, with more than 300 professional.
We have already seven years of experience on which we can capitalize in order to fuel our growth. These professional are competent as well in wind and in solar. You can see on this map of France, the different dots for wind and different dots of solar. You see that, yes, we are today balanced between wind and solar, which is understandable for a country such as France. We have one gigawatt of operation right now, and we have already secured the pipeline to have four gigawatts by 2025. One example of what I call semi-organic growth was the acquisition this year of Global Wind Power.
It's an onshore wind developer, but I can tell you that without the competencies of Quadran, Total Quadran now, as it is named, we would have had a lot of difficulty to make this acquisition profitable because we need all the team in order to expedite the development of the project that we have been acquiring. What we can say today is that if Total in France is clearly the largest energy company, we are already now among the three big players integrated in electricity in France. This, of course, is giving a lot of stability and a lot of confidence, going forward on our ability to remain profitable and to continue growing. After France and Belgium, Spain is to become our third market where we are, again, one of the leading integrated electricity company.
We will be one of the fourth once the deal with EDP will be closed, hopefully very soon. On this market, it is also a market where we can grow solar generation because it's a market where there are lot of sun, more than 2,000 generating hours for solar projects in Spain where we have only 1,000, 50% less, in France or in Germany. It's really a market which is very favorable for low cost solar. On this market, as we mentioned, we have managed to secure a 5 GW pipeline of solar projects, which is noticeable. It represents more or less the third of the total ambition for 2025 of the country. We have managed to secure those 5 GW through, I would say, a low risk acquisition agreement. We have made agreements with three developers.
It is a scheme where the developers are pursuing themselves, the development of the project, and we are buying the project, with payment condition on them reaching precise milestone that you can see on the chart. It's a very efficient way, and very secure way for us to develop this pipeline of project. As I was saying, Spain, is a country where we can produce low cost solar electricity. Patrick has reminded you about our strong objective to reduce our carbon footprint in Scope 1 and Scope 2. We took advantage of the pipeline of solar farm that we are in the process of developing in Spain in order to walk the talk, and mobilizing those farm to produce enough green electricity to supply 100% of the 6 TW hour, electricity needs of all our industrial site in Europe.
We do that on the basis of our own solar asset. We are doing that also, thanks to our trading ability to balance the risk between the countries' electricity price spreads because, of course, we deliver this electricity to our German colleagues on the basis of the German price of electricity. Of course, we have to balance the production of the solar farm and the consumption of our site, which is more or less 24 hours a day when, of course, solar farm are only producing a day. We have the trading ability of doing so. We have signed, what we call a corporate in-house PPA, which is the largest corporate PPA that we have identified to date worldwide.
When we say Total is walking the talk, yes, it is a reality. One example, of course, of high interest of what we are doing on large solar project, such a one that we have won in Qatar. One of the interests of that was, of course, that it is a large project. It was also a test of the competencies and the competitiveness of our team, because yes, we got that through a tender. Through this tender, we managed, without compromising, I can tell you, on our profitability objective. We managed to win the tender with the record levelized cost of electricity at $14.5 per megawatt hour. The Qatari were very happy with us, and we were also very happy because, yes, we got the project on a profitable basis.
It was a test for us to make sure that, yes, we are able to have the best design, we are able to have the most competitive supply chain with attractive prices for the panel. That, of course, we are buying in China because they are the most competitive producer in the world. Therefore, it was a good test and it will start in 2021. As we said, of course, our ambition, especially in a country where the group has been present for nearly 100 years, what we are willing, of course, to develop is on a negotiated basis, other project that should deliver higher return. Another country of interest, we mentioned it, India. Yes, we are targeting India as being one of the main market of today and tomorrow for renewable.
You see on this chart, we have quite an impressive objective of 175 GW of renewable by 2022. India is clearly key for our LNG gas strategy with the high potential for them to reduce CO2 by coal to gas switching. This was the main reason to partner with one of the largest private Indian company, Adani. Going forward, we realized that Adani was very active in renewable. They have created Adani Green, which is a listed company, very successful. They were recently ranked by consultants as the world leader in solar development. They are a very effective and very dynamic company. So we managed to sign with them an agreement to create a 50/50 joint venture on the basis of more than 2 GW of solar farm.
With a very nice rate of return, considering that these projects are completely de-risked because they are already in operation and benefiting for 100% of their production over a 25-year PPA. Total Eren. Another example of what we did in order to attract the competencies that we didn't have internally at the time when we started in 2016. We identified that there was a very competent team, which created Eren in 2012. Pâris Mouratoglou, not to give his name. Knowing that, yes, Pâris has been active in renewables in 2000, he created a company which later on become EDF Energies Nouvelles, which was the listed company before EDF decided to buy 100% in 2011. Pâris decided to recreate a new company, and he partnered with us in 2017. We have 30% of Total Eren today.
They are developing in areas where it is complementary to what our own Total team are doing. Their mission, and they are in the right track to achieve this ambition, is to have five gigawatts by 2022, the year where Total has the option to acquire 100% of the share if we decide to do so. Solar DG. Solar DG, yes, is different market. It's peculiar to solar with no distributed generation for wind, of course. Having the possibility at an acceptable cost to develop a solar producing asset on the roof of different industrial companies is something that is attracting a lot of interest today in many way of the world where it bring already lower cost of electricity rather than buying electricity from the grid. You see that the growth is there, 15% per year.
It is a market that has been taught to us by SunPower because, yes, we learn from the mistake of SunPower, but we learn also of the success of SunPower. SunPower is one of the leader, if not the leader of this business in the U.S. We understand what is needed in order to make money in those business. Yes, we have started, as it was mentioned, to propose to multinational companies that are willing, ask Total to reduce their global carbon footprint to have solarization project. We have one site Total, and some companies are considering it. We are amongst the few companies that can offer them this possibility. It is also a sector where we have managed to attract the interest of Envision, a Chinese company.
I don't know you know this company, but it is a rather well-known technological company, very involved in digital and in renewable. We are on the verge of becoming one of the leader of manufacturing of wind turbines. We have also a footprint in batteries. Very dynamic company, and we have a joint venture with them, 50/50, in China, which is developing today at accelerated space. Even if we have to be reasonable in term of gigawatt, this will never be as important as the solar farm or the wind project that we are developing. One word of SunPower, because, yes, there was recent news for SunPower. Yes, it was mentioned that SunPower was maybe not the best investment that Total has made. We learned from our mistake. We identified very quickly, at least in 2016, when we were counting our strength.
We identified that SunPower had a high performance product, maybe the highest performance worldwide. Clearly, they are not the lowest cost, and mainly for a question of scale. The scale in manufacturing businesses such as solar cells and solar panel is coming from large market such as China and a very good knowhow of low cost manufacturing, such as Chinese are able to develop. We only identify that the future of SunPower had on the manufacturing side to go through a partnership with Chinese company. This is what was achieved and was announced recently this month. A spin-off of Maxeon Solar Technologies, which is a manufacturing arm, with a partnership with TZS, which was one of the partners well-known to SunPower and one of the leading wafer manufacturing for solar wafers. TZS has taken a 29% shareholding, injecting $300 million inside Maxeon.
New SunPower, so the remaining SunPower, will focus only on distributed generation and storage markets, having the freedom to source the best panels, the cheapest panel, if it is of its interest. Of course, we think that it is a good promise for future successes for both companies. We saw that the stock market has recognized that, and there was a significant value creation through this spin-off. Wind offshore. Wind offshore, as you might have seen us, we were a bit shy on this technology, but we knew. We are considering for years, but it was a too costly technology. You have to remember that, no later than 2018, there were still some PPAs that were negotiated with public authority on the basis of prices much higher than $ 100 per megawatt hour.
Through the contact that we had with the contractors, that are the same, but the one that we use in oil and gas. We started to understand that there was a cost reduction, a significant reduction, which was happening. We decided to partner first with Ørsted, the world leader, and we did partner with them in order to bid on the tender, Dunkirk in France, that we lost. We learned a lot from having our teams discussing and working shoulder to shoulder with Ørsted. When you want to learn, you better partner with best one in the industry. That's what we did. Yes, we lost the tender because we were unwilling to compromise on the profitability. We realized that we were able to make a profitable bid for us at less than $ 50 per megawatt hour.
We were definitely convinced that, yes, this technology has a future. We looked since then at different opportunity. The first one that we can announce as a real first big step is the Seagreen project, where we have acquired a majority stake, 51%, with a nice partner, SSE, which is also one of the leading developer of wind offshore project in the North Sea. This project is already under construction. This is a project where we have the exception, 50% is covered by PPA. We have some ideas, and there will be some auction next year that could allow us to secure a bit more and allow us to de-risk even more the project. On this basis, we are already satisfied with the economics as we see them.
There is opportunity to develop 400 MW beyond that could be also at a nice level of profitability. As Patrick mentioned, the new frontier in wind offshore is in floating offshore, because the fixed-bed project are limited more or less to 60-meter water depth. In the North Sea, yes, there is a lot of area to develop those projects. Outside of the North Sea, most of the time, we are very limited in term of surface. You can only use project that need less than 60-meter water depth. The floating is the new concept that is being developed. It can unlock fantastic development for the technology.
Of course, today it's more expensive than the fixed bed, there are a strong willingness of many countries to offer PPA in order to meet the profitability requirement that we have and allows to secure the development of first project on a profitable basis. We have already two significant projects. There will be another one that we'll announce later in October. We have already 400 MW of project in the U.K. We have announced also partnership with Macquarie, with a portfolio of 2 GW of projects in South Korea. Of course, the challenge being to reduce the cost. We intend, evidently, to leverage the competencies that we have inside, developed in oil and gas, because this will be more or less the same technologies. We need, of course, to work in order to industrialize the best technology and to lower the cost.
We have started already with a team that is working on this subject with a budget of $20 million per year of budget. Last slide that Patrick already showed you. This is the result of our ambition, the 35 GW that we ambition to have in operation, because we have, of course, a pipeline to go beyond, but 35 GW in operation in 2025. Double-digit return for sure. Very low risk, nearly 100%, as we mentioned, secured by PPA with first-rank companies or with public authorities. With this ambition, I think, yes, we will be among the five global leaders of this industry. Stop there. Leave us. Ladislas, please.
All right. Well, thank you very much, Philippe. If you have questions for Philippe, keep them for now. There will be the Q&A session at the end. Now we have the last Zoom focus on the mobility revolution. It will be made of two parts. To introduce this Zoom, I hand over to Helle.
Thank you, Ladislas. Good afternoon, everyone. Just as a way of a quick introduction on the revolution that is taking place in the mobility sector, I have one chart from our energy outlook that we presented yesterday. Here it is. What you can see here is the actual fuel mix of the worldwide transport sector expressed in million barrels equivalent per day in 2018 to the left. Moving over to the right, the evolution in 2030 and 2050 in our two scenarios, momentum and rupture. The colors on the bar chart to the further right, so rupture in 2050, tell the whole story. It shows how the fuel mix diversifies and how effectively we cannot achieve net zero for the transport sector without this massive change in the use of fuels. To the far right, therefore, you have the different fuels.
You see that there is still some way left, and that would be especially in emerging markets. There is a strong penetration of biofuels and e-fuels, so sustainable liquid fuels. Synthetic fuels is another name. Penetration also of natural gas, hydrogen, and of course, electrification, especially of passenger cars, but not only. In the shorter term, which is the data you didn't have yesterday, so between now and 2030, the takeaway is that electrification, biofuels, and gases will be the best way to decarbonize transport. This is effectively what you're going to hear about now from first Bernard, I believe, and then Alexis. Thank you.
Thank you, Helle. Good afternoon. Let's now turn to biofuels. What I intend to do in the next 20 minutes with Alexis together, is to share with you our ambition on the biofuels market from a producer, as well as from a marketer standpoint. Let's first turn to the market, the world biofuel market. You see it on this chart. What is, of course, obvious is that it's a growing market, 2 million barrels a day today, 4% of global transportation fuels market. We expect this part to double by 2030, and of course, as I'll explain, depending on the scenario, this part could even further double by 2050. Why is it growing? It's pretty obvious. It's because biofuels reduce CO2 emissions by more than 50% compared to their fossil counterparts.
The states have, of course, understood that this is a readily available solution to decarbonize transportation. States put in place CO2 reduction targets supported by tax incentives. Practically, it means that a given percentage of biofuels has to be incorporated into fossil fuels. Of course, these targets are meant to increase over time. When you look at the 10 years ahead of us, in most of the countries, you see this target increasing. On top of it, you even see more states coming and joining, I would say, the trend, by putting in place such a mechanism. The latest one being, for example, Canada, which intend to reduce their carbon intensity by 12% by 2030, or states in the U.S., like Oregon, New York or Washington. In a nutshell, an attractive market from a growth standpoint.
How do we intend to catch this growth? What is our strategy? Our strategy has been designed along two pillars. From a producer standpoint, which is a perspective of Refining & Chemicals, our strategy is going to grow in renewable diesel, the most attractive part of the biofuels market. I will come back on this one. As a marketer, of course, which is a perspective of Marketing & Services, the strategy is to grow the share of biofuels distributed through our retail network. I leave the floor now to Alexis. Alexis will elaborate on this one.
Thank you, Bernard. Indeed, our ambition in biofuels is to grow our sales very significantly, as you can see. We're looking at growth both in Europe and in the rest of the world. In Europe, we are currently the largest biofuel retailer. Indeed, the European Green Deal that was just announced will translate to higher incorporation mandates, and also HVO will come into the equation, especially with the trucking segment. HVO has a great interest for all those company who want to reduce their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emission without having to change their trucks. So the combination of those will allow us to continue developing our biofuel mix in this continent. We go beyond that. As an example, we are actively promoting E85. That means 85% of ethanol in gasoline in our retail network in France.
We doubled the number of stations offering E85 between 2018 and 2019, and we continue expanding our network as the demand is clearly there. Beyond Europe, we have identified a few markets where we want to grow. One of these is Brazil, which is the second-largest biofuel market in the world, with 1/3 of the sales there biofuels already. In 2019, we acquired a network of 300 stations. This was the first step, as our target is to have more than 1,000 stations in Brazil by 2025. We are also anticipating developments in the aviation business, but Bernard will elaborate on that in a few moments. You see, biofuel will represent between 10% and 15% of our sales in 2030.
This is what it takes to meet the two key objectives of the group of reducing the carbon intensity of our sales and increasing the absolute Scope 3 emissions by 2030. Over to you, Bernard.
Thank you, Alexis. Let's turn to renewable diesel. I just said that this is what we want to focus on as a producer in Refining and Chemical. Let's try to see why. When you look at the biofuels market, typically, you have to split this market into three segments, which each have very different characteristics. The very first one at the bottom is a pretty well-known segment, the biogasoline. It's the largest one. There you incorporate bioethanol made out of sugar. The second segment is a biodiesel segment, where you incorporate biocomponent made out of vegetable oil, typically rapeseed oil, corn, soybean. These biocomponent are called ester, FAME. They have a drawback. They contain oxygen. That limits, from a technical standpoint, their incorporation rate into the engine. There is what you call a blending cap or blending wall.
Above a certain volume, typically 7%, you risk to damage the engine. Of course, you understand that that puts a cap on the growth potential. These two first segments have many points in common. They have low entry barriers. They are not very capital intensive. The technology is pretty well-known. As a consequence, they are largely oversupplied, and as a consequence, margins are poor. This is, of course, not the kind of market you like to compete in when you are a producer. The first segment at the top is the renewable diesel segment. It's also a biocomponent for the diesel market. It's also produced from vegetable oil, but this time with a different technology called hydrogenation. The beauty of this process is that you can rid of the oxygen into your biocomponent, and all of a sudden you understand that there is no incorporation limit anymore.
This is what we call a drop-in solution. In theory, you can even replace, substitute 100% of your fossil fuels by this renewable diesel. This is a high-quality grade. The entry barrier are higher than for the two other segments. It's more capital-intensive. It's growing. From that standpoint, it's an attractive market, a high-margin market. Typically, the kind of market you want to play in. The last comment, as Alexis mentioned, renewable diesel can be used for airlines. That's not the case of the two other segments. As you know, air transportation today faces a huge challenge in terms of CO2 emission reduction, which means that there is an additional growth potential for renewable diesel. This is what I would like to show you now in more detail. Air transport, the equation is very simple. You see there.
This industry emitted last year around 1 billion tons of CO2. Airlines have made the commitment to reduce their CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050. At the same time, they know that the passenger traffic will double during this period of time. It looks like a tricky equation to solve. How do we address this challenge? First, of course, airlines try to reduce the weight of their airplanes by putting more lightweight material. They also try to optimize their flight plans to reduce their fuel consumptions. The first lever, the main lever is, of course, around the fuel itself. Today, liquid fuels are hard to substitute for long-haul flights. We know it. Thanks to its premium quality, premium grade, the renewable diesel is the only available solution offered today to airlines to reduce their CO2 emissions.
You understand this is a brand-new market, and the states have understood, of course, it. You see now countries like Norway, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, tomorrow Europe and probably the U.S., putting in place incorporation targets exactly as they did for the road transportation. We have in front of us a brand-new nascent market, which will also fuel the growth of biofuels and notably renewable diesel. We have looked at the demand side. It's pretty attractive. Let's now have a look at the supply side. You have here the balance between supply and demand for renewable diesel. What is clear on the chart is that there is a clear need for additional capacities to meet the demand. Today, the market is short of capacities, and we think it will stay that way for the years to come. Why is that? It's very simple.
When you think about where the new capacities might come from, of course, you think about retrofitting existing refineries, exactly what we did with La Mède or what we are about to do with Grandpuits close to Paris. The typical lead time is three- four years between the moment where you make the announcement and the moment where you have your first production. On top of it, we don't see many new greenfield projects. The last comment, there are also not so many projects in Europe, and it's hard to some extent because we consider that Europe is at the forefront in terms of energy transition and carbon neutrality. There is an opportunity clearly for European refiners and, of course, for Total. In a nutshell, if I had to summarize, the market will stay tight, and of course, that will support margins for the years to come.
What is our strategy in this field to catch this potential, this opportunity? We have designed a strategy built along three pillars. I am going to detail each of them. The first one, of course, is to convert existing assets. That is particularly true for Europe, where we need to adapt our refining system. We have done it with La Mède. You know it. It has been our first step. We are now doing it with Grandpuits. I will come back to it in more details in a few minutes. That is the first pillar we execute. The second one, of course, is to increase the share of co-processing in our existing refinery system. We take the existing assets with some marginal CapEx, mainly some logistic CapEx to segregate the vegetable oils from crude. We produce renewable diesel.
It's done at a marginal cost because typically our costs are very low. You see there that we have plans to restart by 12,000 tons in Europe in the next two-three years, and we're also looking at opportunities in the U.S. The last pillar, of course, is to develop new units, additional production units, on existing platforms where we can leverage existing synergies, typically logistic synergies, or if you have an excess of hydrogen, typically, you can also leverage this excess hydrogen to produce renewable diesel, and that's typically the project we're evaluating today in Korea. It's half a million ton of capacity project on our platform in Daesan. What you see clearly is that by leveraging our existing refinery setup, we are able to benefit from very low CapEx, in the range of $500-$750 per ton, as you see.
This has to be compared with greenfield projects, which range more in the area of $1,000+ per ton. It's very attractive from the CapEx intensity standpoint. Also, I will come back on this because it's also critical, we design our investments in a way to be able to process all type of feedstock as flexibility is key in this market. As Patrick explained, we are targeting more than 2 million tons of renewable diesel by 2025, and moving this volume, doubling again this volume and coming close to 5 million tons by 2030. With a cash flow generation, in the current environment of $350 per ton. I was mentioning feedstocks, which is a critical point, and I would like to tell you why. On this chart you have the market split of the main feedstocks used for renewable diesel.
On the left-hand side, the largest pool, very well known. These are all types of vegetable oils. It's a resource which is largely available, and which will remain largely available for the future, even after the palm ban. In the middle, you have a growing category called waste and residues, so typically animal fat or used cooking oil. There is a growing demand for this category, with some tax incentives because this category contribute to the circular economy, and it's supported by the government and the states. The challenge there, of course, is to increase the collection rate to meet the increasing demand. 25 million tons today, which is already significant, and we expect this category to grow in the decade to come. The last category, on the right-hand side, called advanced. It's the next generation, but not really available today. We see it more playing a role by 2030.
As you see, there are plenty of different feedstocks to play with. Of course, it depends on the price because prices are pretty volatile depending on the, once again, on the feedstocks. You have to play with the legislation, as I just said, for example, palm oil is banned in France, animal fat is banned in Germany. Depending on the legislation, you have a different mix to play with. Of course, you have to play with the tax mechanism. I was mentioning waste and residues, which in some cases benefit from tax incentives. You understand why it's so critical to be able to play with all the set, all the panel, all these feedstocks. That's why it's so critical to design your units to be able to process all type of feedstock. This is exactly what we have done.
You see it in La Mède and tomorrow in Grandpuits. In La Mède, so far, we have been able to process successfully eight different types of feedstocks. We have designed our units to be able to pre-treat these feedstocks, to also be able to segregate between the different types of oil and feedstocks or finished goods. Of course, we leverage the expertise of a trading to be able, once again, to get access to the best sources of certified feedstocks. Practically, what have we done and what do we intend to do? The very first move we made, you know it was with La Mède. It started up last year, middle of 2019. This has been our first move. We have applied there our business model, which is once again to retrofit existing assets to benefit from low CapEx.
You see here that the CapEx intensity of La Mède was around $600 per ton. To be compared, once again, with the metrics of a greenfield project, which is more in the region of $1,000 plus per ton. It has been designed, I've already said it, to be able to process all type of feedstocks. Today, we are in the ramp-up phase, 300,000 tons of production. This is what we expect to do by 2020, by the end of the year, delivering positive cash flow from operations above $350 per ton. I would say a first step, a successful one. Of course, we are now leveraging this experience to move to our next project, which is Grandpuits, close to Paris. That will be our very first zero crude or zero oil platform, entirely dedicated to bio-based fuels and polymers, as well as to plastic recycling.
This represent an investment of more than $500 million CapEx. Good internal rate of return, you see there, more than 15%. We have there, if I just describe briefly the different projects, the biorefinery, which will process 400,000 tons of feedstocks, 70% being waste and residue, with half of it being secured. This unit will be largely dedicated to the production of biojet, sustainable airline fuels. That will be the main outlet of this biorefinery, and with some renewable diesel, of course, starting up in 2024. We have also a brand new bioplastic unit producing PLA. PLA is a biopolymer made out of sugar. We have, as you know, a very successful partnership with Corbion. We invested two years ago in a plant in Thailand, 1w00,000 tons.
This plant has been ramping up very well. We have taken the decision to double the capacity of this joint venture, and to locate this new unit in Grandpuits with, again, a startup phase by 2024. The third project is a plastic recycling unit. It's a chemical recycling unit. It's a first in France. It's going to be a joint venture as well with a company called Plastic Energy. We are targeting a startup in 2023. We have, last but not least, a solar farm, 15 MW of capacity, which will contribute, as Philippe explained, to the generation of green electricity for the European asset of the group. As a conclusion, you will remember that our strategy is built along two pillars. A leading producer, leading marketer. Producer, we want to grow our production in renewable diesel, becoming a leader in this field.
In the field of biofuels, as Alexis explained, we want to grow our share of biofuels within our liquid fuels by 2030 to a level which will represent 10%-15% of our sales, and of course, which will also contribute to reducing the carbon intensity of our sales. Thank you. I leave the floor to Alexis now.
Thank you, Bernard. For the next 20 minutes, together with Philippe, I will present our third and last focus on how Total is embracing the electric mobility revolution. I will start by stating the obvious. Mobility is about to change drastically. It has already started, albeit slowly, but the change will be major in the coming decades due to the exponential penetration of the electric vehicle. In the Total Energy Outlook that was presented to you yesterday, in the Momentum 1, the share of electric vehicles will reach close to 60% of the fleet by 2050. In the Rupture scenario, the increase is even faster, as the percentage will be close to 75% of the world fleet in 2050.
In Western Europe, we are presenting here on the right the five markets where Total has a strong footprint, the number of vehicles on the road will be more or less stable at around 100 million vehicles. The switch to electric mobility will be faster than the worldwide average. You can see that the share of electric vehicles will still be modest in five years, in 2025, at less than 5%, will grow significantly to reach almost 20% in 2030, close to 95% by 2050, thanks to the impulse given by the Green Deal. This acceleration is no science fiction is being fueled by three main drivers. First and foremost, regulations. Regulations are the main market driver, they take place at various levels, in economic zones, in countries, and in cities.
There are many examples beyond the long-term political objectives of carbon neutrality announced by Europe and China recently. There is, for example, the emission target of 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer that has been set on vehicles sold in the Europe since this year. There is the banning of the internal combustion engine by many countries in the next one or two decades. There is the introduction of zero or ultra-low emission zone in city centers, as London and Amsterdam have already done. Car manufacturers have reacted to these regulations and have started to invest massively in EV. They have clearly chosen electricity as the next technology, and this is the second major market driver. Finally, performance of batteries is rapidly increasing while costs are decreasing. This is the third market driver, as it allow us to foresee, one, cheaper cars.
The cost of the battery currently represents still 40% of the cost of the car. Two, extended autonomy. These are the two pain points preventing customers from switching massively to EV right now. The mobility world is changing. As Total, we have integrated that in our strategy. In mobility and EV charging, and I will come back to that in a few moments, our strategy will be to address the most mature and attractive markets in terms of size and to leverage our position. We are quite excited as we really do believe this represents a fantastic business opportunities for Total. I just mentioned how batteries are a key driver to this market and a key element of the value chain, Philippe will now explain how Total is addressing this marketing opportunity by developing key position in battery manufacturing. Over to you, Philippe.
Thank you, Alexis. First slide. You have to remember that when we invested in Saft, the strategy was, in fact, to develop what we call energy stationary services. Those battery need to compensate for renewable production, intermittency, peak shifting, or frequency regulation. To be profitable, and we learned, once again, from our mistake and some of our experience, we were willing to get a low-cost manufacturing basis. Of course, this was implying to go to China, and also to take interest in mobility because the lithium-ion battery needed for ESS are more or less the same chemical family as the one for mobility. After having discussed with different partners in China, we decided to partner with Tianneng, headquartered near Shanghai. They are the number one worldwide of the lead battery for vehicle. This business is not part of the venture.
They were eager to develop a lithium-ion. They have already built a gigafactory, large factory, but which was not completely filled. We decided to partner with them. We created the joint venture 60/40 in 2019. Saft is contributing, clearly, mainly with lithium-ion chemistry know-how, and Tianneng is contributing with first, its gigafactory, existing one, and is also contributing with its sales channels in China. Because on real basis, we can develop, produce cheaply product for our ESS business outside of China, and we can also develop business for mobility in China, where we are leveraging also their sale network. Today, we are already the leader in China with close to 30% market share of the e-bike segment, which is one of the highest growth segment in e-mobility. When I say e-bike, it is not only the bicycle, it is also the motorcycles.
This is our investment in China. Second slide. Thank you, Alexis. We are not limiting our ambition to China. We had also an opportunity when Europe decided really to adopt a very clear policy to promote, to impose development electric cars. We had the opportunity to discuss the possibility of building manufacturing capability for battery for electric vehicles, in Europe. The risk for Europe was, of course, to import batteries from China one day and in the future to import the vehicles. We had a discussion with the authorities, with a very strong partner, PSA, one of the leading manufacturer in Europe, and maybe the most profitable now. We decided to partner with PSA 50/50 today to develop this Automotive Sales Company. We created the company early August. The objective around 2030 is to get up to one equivalent of 1 million EV.
That means more or less 10% of the European market. We'll go step by step. Clearly, the first step is R&D step, which has already started since August. For Total, the investment is limited to EUR 500 million equity injection, knowing that we have significant subsidies that have already been granted by France and Germany on this project. Alexis?
Thank you, Philippe. I am going to share with you now how we are addressing the EV charging market. EV will completely reshuffle the distribution of energy to motorists. Today, customers come to our service station to refuel, and they usually do so while on the move. With EV, it is a different ballgame. The car will charge when it is not in use, when it is parked, which is most of the time. It will bring multiple charging opportunities compared to today. In Europe, market research foresees that approximately 40% of charging will occur at home, 40% at the workplace, 15% in the public domain, and about 5% at service stations. This means that we have to reinvent the way we interact with our customers. We have to switch to a multi-channel distribution model.
We won't wait for customers to come to our sites anymore, and we need to provide them with charging services wherever they choose. To address this new paradigm, we will focus on our strengths. Two of those are our experience in offering services and our ability to manage infrastructure. This is why our primary focus will be on the B2B and the B2G segments. We will leverage our relationship with our professional B2B customers, in particular for charging at work, and while they are on the move at our service stations. In a moment, I will show you a few examples of our ability to install and operate charging points in the public domain. The public domain is what we call B2C.
We will obviously reach B2C through public points and service station, but B2C and home charging is not our foremost priority, unless in instances where Total can also be the electricity provider, as increased consumption there may make it worthwhile. There are various business models and position along the value chain. Because we are focusing on B2B and B2G and retail, the first customers we are dealing with are cities and companies. The vast majority will want a single point of contact throughout the chain, providing the installation of the hardware, the operation and the maintenance, and obviously the charging services with energy sales and associated services. Our business model to seize this new business opportunity is to be what we call a charge point operator, capturing the bulk of the value chain. We sell the energy and the charging services, and we develop direct customer relationships.
For convenience, our customers will want to have the capacity to access a larger number of charge point beyond the ones operated by Total. Our Total mobility solutions will also allow charging at third-party charge points, and in this way, we can retain the relationship with our customers end-to-end. Lastly, in certain markets, Total can integrate upstream by providing the electricity as well as the operation of the charging point, allowing us to capture more of the value. Our strategy is first to address a market where we are strong and where the infrastructure needs to grow rapidly. That is Western Europe. In our main European markets, the number of charge point will grow significantly by 2025.
We estimate that 3 million charging points will be installed in Europe in the next five years, but 40% of them, or 1.2 million, will be installed by corporate customers and by cities who want to equip the public domain. In this context, our strategy is to prioritize urban markets, first by taking position through public concession in large cities, then by installing fast chargers in over 200 major urban hubs targeting high-mileage urban professional. Obviously, the perfect complement is then to connect those urban areas. This will be done by installing super fast chargers of 300 of our service station along the main road corridors over Europe. In line with the objective of reducing emissions, cities are rapidly installing EV charging infrastructure. Total intends to partner with major cities through concessions to foster e-mobilities. We already have two iconic examples.
First, earlier this year, we were awarded the concession of the metro region of Amsterdam. We already operate 5,000 charge points there and could go up to 20,000 by 2024. Since Amsterdam is a dense urban area with limited individual parking, we foresee a high usage rate, which explain why such business can bring a favorable equity return above 15%. Second, we are not relying only on organic growth. M&A is part of our growth plan. London is a dynamic market in terms of EV adoption as it has set the ambition to become a zero-carbon city in 2050. I'm very happy to announce that in line with our strategy last week, we signed the acquisition of Blue Point London, leader of EV charging in London with around 50% market share and long-term contract with 23 boroughs.
There are already 1,600 operated charge points, and we are planning up to 4,000 by 2025. Amsterdam and London are great examples. Altogether, today we have already 12,000 charge points in operation in various cities in Europe, and with the coming growth that I have just outlined, we are well on track to reach our target of 50,000 operated charge point in the B2G segment by 2025. In urban areas, we also have to cater for the fast charging needs of certain professional who are doing high mileage on a daily basis, in particular taxis, ride-hailing cars, but also last mile delivery vehicles. These professional will need dedicated high-speed EV charging stations. This gives a great opportunity for the creation of charging hubs offering multiple charging points. You can see a picture on the left of our first one that is already up and running.
Charging hubs are now being deployed in urban nodes to cover major cities in Western Europe, and we target to have more than 200 sites in the next five years. For long distance traveling, on the right, the issue of autonomy will remain a point of attention for some time. The solution here lies with high-power charging or what we call superchargers, up to 350 kW. They have the capacity to deliver 100 km of autonomy in six minutes. Here, Total has a very valuable asset with our existing retail network of more than 6,500 stations across Europe to choose from for providing this service. Our goal is to deploy 300 high-power charging sites along highways by 2022. This means one every 150 kilometers on main road corridors.
By developing this network, we will offer our EV customers the possibility to travel with the customer experience close to the one that they are experiencing today. Obviously, as a side comment and taking into account the average amount of time necessary to recharge, our customer will enjoy our well-established convenience services also. Whether on highways or on urban charging hubs, our target is to install 1,500 fast and super fast chargers in 500 locations by 2025. This represents a commitment of around $200 million and a projected IRR of 10%. The last segment I would like to present is the B2B segment. We have a fantastic asset with our existing 1 million client base and the full potential to accompany them in their transition to cleaner mobility.
In Europe, we have 3 million Total fleet cardholders, already mobility clients of Total, who will be interested for sure in our EV charging offer. This is a solid base to leverage, keeping in mind that B2B fleet conversion to EV is supported by legal constraints, by the net zero ambition of our client themselves, and by the fact that certain zone will not be accessible with conventional fuels. We anticipate the B2B segment will move fast, and the potential in Europe is over 1 million charge points for B2B by 2025. This move is already happening, and on the slide, we can see a few examples of our success. Enedis, who is a major grid operator in France, is a very good reference. They have actually one of the largest EV fleets, and we have installed 1,250 charging points over 155 of their sites for the fleet.
Our B2B customers may want to use the charging services that we operate on their premises, not only for their fleet, but also for their clients, their employees, their visitors. This is what we call the host segment. It is what we have done for Peugeot, where we have installed 175 charge points at 14 sites in six countries. It is the same principle for a shopping center who would want to provide charging services at their parking spaces. Last, an example of how we leverage the long-term relationship with our customers is what we have done thanks to our lubricant business. Within the last year, we have worked with more than 500 OEM dealers and garages across Europe to equip them with over 2,500 charge points.
All in all, putting all this together, our target to operate 100 charge points in the B2B segment by 2025 is quite realistic. The next five years will be key to position Total well. This position is important because after this, taking into account the market development dynamics that I highlighted at the beginning, the pace will accelerate drastically. Building on our strength and our competitive advantage, we will reach a 10% market share in the B2G and B2B segments in Western Europe. Total is committing the necessary resources to make this plan happen and will allocate $300 million of CapEx and $300 million of assets under leasing over the next five years. We're not starting from zero. We already have a head start with the 18,000 charge points that we already operate and a significant number in our portfolio.
This positions us very well to reach our target of operating 150,000 charge points by 2025, which will deliver 500 GW hour. This business will bring an additional $50 million of cash flow from operation to Marketing & Services by 2025, and around $100 million by 2030, thanks to a forecasted increase in usage rate. We will therefore be a major e-mobility player in Europe. I've spoken about Europe because that is where Total and EV growth are strong. EV charging is advancing at pace in China. Total has a presence in this country with strong position in three regions. As you can see with this picture of our first charging hub in Wuhan, in Hubei, in partnership with Didi, we are also on the move there. Clearly, more to come from Total on EV charge for sure.
Thank you for your attention, and I think we can move to the Q&A.
Thank you, Alexis, for this presentation about the e-mobility, and to Bernard for the biofuels and Philippe for renewables. I think we are back for a session of 45 minutes until 6:30 P.M. There were some question left for the first session, of course, we should give priority to you and then we can take more questions. The floor is yours.
Your first question comes from the line of Christyan Malek from JPMorgan. Please ask your question.
Patrick and team, thank you for the Michelin star dinner, as I appreciate the delicate balance of staying oil as your core business and then building clean energy at the same time. I didn't submit a question in the last round, if I may, I have three. My first question relates to the flex you have with capital allocation oil versus electrons in what could be an upward trend for oil prices. How tempted would you be to invest in more short cycle projects in a higher oil price environment at the cost of delaying your elevated power target in 2025 of 35 GW?
I know it's a tough trade-off, but how would you prioritize that in terms of the capital frame? Then linked to that question, and forgive me for being a bit more optimistic about the macro environment of the medium term, but in a year of excess free cash flow where debt has deleveraged faster than 20%, I just want to be clear, would you consider increasing your dividend payout? How should we think about buyback versus dividend priority? Thirdly, and final question is, I think it's very bold to provide explicit super of the extreme renewables business in 2025, and thank you for more granularity than we'd expected. A lot of the debate we've had around growth in renewables by all companies, whether this will ever be valued appropriately by the equity market.
Would you consider doing what the utilities companies did and carve out or IPO the effective utility part of the business as a separate entity? I guess that would be a great dessert to finish off this great new menu.
The only question I didn't catch because, sorry, Christyan, I catch perfectly the last two question, but the first one, because the sound here was not very good, I'm not sure if I've understood. Christyan, your question was arbitration between CapEx to electrons and oil and gas? If I understand. The first question, can you repeat?
Yes, exactly. The tension. Essentially, how you think about allocating more CapEx towards short cycle in a higher oil price environment? Does that come at a cost of delaying your new power targets? What's the trade-off in an oil sequel environment in capital?
I think the question is answered for me. It's clear. The short cycle CapEx, we allocate them depending on the payback on the oil price. If we are honestly at $50 or $60 back, we are back at $ 50, $60, and we have more cash, so we could decide to accelerate the short cycle. It will not be done on the detrimental part of the low carbon electricity, because again, in all the scenarios we have, we have decided that we'll put the $2 billion we need for the next few years, and then we'll increase it progressively. I see that as an additional opportunity to deliver more cash from our oil and gas and maybe feeding then more our low carbon electricity business with more opportunities if we can capture some. I don't see, with the CapEx allocation we propose, there is no antagonization.
Yes, let's be clear. Oil is still at the core of a company like gas and energy, don't make a mistake. We want to add a third part and to build it with a clear strategy. It's not a matter of arbitrating to more electrons against oil. Again, short-term CapEx can be activated. If we see a rebound, which is perfectly possible in the oil price, it's a matter of mobilizing the rig. You have noticed that this year, sorry for that, we have decided to remobilize the rig in Angola. In fact, we saw a possibility to quickly get some more. There was some wells with quite high returns, which could be done immediately. There is a debate for another rig in Angola. We'll see. That's true, we have to monitor that according also to the environment that we face today.
The second one, I will tell you. We know that our investors prefer dividend than buybacks, you know, when I ask the question. Our board is clearly more in favor of dividend than buybacks. Having said that, we also have the remark of Michele previously during the discussion, and it's a matter for me of level of the shares. It's why it's clear that the board is waiting to see the stock rating. If we remain at 9% of returns, there will be a question mark where it will be strange for us to increase the dividend and not to allocate additional cash flow to buybacks, which will be the priority. I think for me, the answer is we prefer dividend, and our investors prefer dividend when we ask the question, but it's linked to the re-rating of the shares.
There is a triangle there. The share price, the dividend, and the buybacks. Again, if we remain at the high yield of 8%, 9%, there is a certain logic to allocate that, to allocate additional cash flow in priority to buybacks. Let's wait and see if when we propose this strategy, which is more aggressive, and to give clarity to be the broad energy company, we convince investors. Then, the day we'll have these cash flows, we will have to make that arbitration. I gave you some insights of the discussion around the board, but I have no problem to be transparent on that. The last question, I think, Christyan, again, I answered, I think, to one of your colleagues just before. It's a matter of size.
Clearly, our objective today is that we are convinced that we can find investors to put their money and to believe and to support this global energy company. Again, and I come back on it, we have some financial strength and some financial potential capacities, to invest in renewables and electricity business. Many of our competitors in the utilities do not have, in fact. In fact, I see the reactions. The more we are expressing the targets, and we are acquiring assets, and we move forward, the more we are a little afraid by looking to see these big oil and gas companies, with their cash flows entering into that market. It's a matter of again, linked to shares. Can we convince investor? Can we rerate the Total shares, including, and they will accept this business model or not?
If not, we need time to do that. We need, say, as I said, five years. If not, in the meantime, we will have built, I would say, a sort of a beautiful renewable portfolio and the alternative could be to revisit alternative. It's not a priority today. The priority is to establish it. I think for the long term, and if we are all serious about bringing climate change solutions, our companies having the source of cash flows from oil and gas and redirecting it is the best way to accelerate the solutions for the climate change challenge.
Thank you.
Okay.
Yeah. Our next question comes from the line of Alastair Syme from Citi. Please ask your question.
Hi. Thank you all for the presentation. Two questions. Can you do everything you think you need to do in refining, through adaptation? I was struck in Helle's presentation yesterday that suggested under the European Green Deal that oil demand might be as little as one to two million barrels a day by 2050. Secondly, I wonder if you just touch on the cost estimations you think for floating wind versus fixed base. What's the level of difference and what are you building in terms of cost reductions into your project economics in Korea and the U.K.? Thank you.
Yes. Philippe will take the second question. On the first one, just to tell you, first we speak about 2050. We are still in 2020. That means that's why I think, Total clearly has a clear strategy of progressively adapting our refining system in Europe. We have began, I think, 10 years ago. We shut down the Dunkirk refinery, then we went to La Mède to convert it. Now we do it with Grandpuits. I think it's a question of facing the reality and doing progressively, trying to benefit from this biofuels market, which is supported by European government policies. Frankly, it's better to be among the first to do it, rather than being among the last.
When you look to the remaining refineries which are in the portfolio of Bernard today, I think I would have been very happy to have the six remaining refineries in Antwerp, Leuna, Zeeland, Normandy, Donges, and Feyzin that are left in Europe. I would have preferred to have that portfolio when I was the head of refining in chemicals, rather than the one with many refineries and some unprofitable. So it's a question, again, of adapting progressively, but there is no doubt that we will have to do it. Having said that, when you have a very profitable one like the Antwerp one or Leuna or Normandy, there is no reason why not to maintain this activity. Bernard, you want to complement on that?
No, it's clear what you said.
It's okay. Philippe?
Yes. Today, the cost of floating, of course, is just only based on the pilot that we are in fact designing right now. At the time when we speak, the cost in CapEx, let's say, per watt is around $ 6. It's double the price or the cost of the fixed bed. Knowing that, of course, what we anticipate is that there will be higher, stronger wind for the floating because more or less, the farther you are from the coast, the more regular and the stronger the wind are. You should have more production. Of course, it's just a new technology in its infancy. We should be able at first to have a higher size for the wind turbine, even beyond what we see today. Well, currently, for instance, Seagreen is based on 10 MW.
We can imagine for floating that we'll go maybe twice as much. Of course, all this technology has to be developed. In five years, we went in fixed bed from $1 50 per megawatt hour to $ 250. We have the same kind of challenge to face today in the floating.
Well, I think, again, it's a matter of supply chain and mobilizing the people with this emerging technology, which is of interest for us. A country like Korea is offering a beautiful platform because you have a lot of yards there. A lot of, by the way, suppliers, which are working for the E&P, which knows a lot about floating platforms and a motivating government. They have a clear policy. I'm convinced that these type of countries will help to emerge. It's a matter of, at the beginning, to give the right incentives to accept to pay, I would say, $200 per megawatt hour so that this will emerge. Then there will be an acceleration of this technology. I think it's the same process than the others, but there is a big potential.
Frankly, on this one, the Oil & Gas company are perfectly positioned to be at the forefront. It's why, by the way, Macquarie, which had already these rights to make wind measurements in Korea, has selected Total rather than a utility, because they saw a clear interest to partner with us on this project. Yes, it's still costly, it's clear, but it's a matter now of engaging in industrial projects and not just pilots. Okay. Next question.
Yeah. Our next question comes from the line of Biraj Borkhataria from RBC. Please ask your question.
Hi. Thanks for taking my question. Thanks for the presentation. I've got a couple of questions again on low carbon, but I just want to get a sense of the level of competition in that business. Over the last couple of years, could you say what proportion of solar and wind tenders that you entered that you didn't win? I'm just trying to get some comfort around that. The second question is on your low carbon cash flow target, the $ 1.5 billion in 2025. What is that number in 2020? I vaguely remember putting out a target of $1 billion in 2020, a few years ago, but I don't know if that's apples to apples, so a clarification on that would be helpful. Thank you.
No, it's not the same at all. It was, by the way, by VN mainly. When we say that it was mainly based on SunPower and expectations, which clearly have been disappointing. Today, the figure we gave you today is a sum of many assets, so it's much more reliable, but depending on one or two performance, so we were maybe too optimistic by that time. I think in the slide, which I show you have the figure, maybe not. I will look to give it to you. Today, we are more in the field of $200 million, to be clear. It's emerging because all that is just being built. The first question, how many tenders did you not win? I think we lost mainly, in the Middle East, in Saudi Arabia, in Abu Dhabi, I think.
Okay.
Big two, big tender, two tenders on which we are competing. Frankly, these ones, they were very aggressive. In the wind offshore on the care. Again, I think these tenders, it's like in E&P. You don't make money generally once you win a tender. You make money because you have better idea, and you find direct negotiation. There are many, many players around the world, small players, which are, in fact, developing some pipelines and which do not have the financial capacity to build. This is what we have done in Spain, the business model, which was referred to you by Philippe. They have the local knowledge. They have the capacity to have access to connections and land, but they have no financial capacity.
When we find them, we come, and they see immediately the advantage of partnering or selling their pipeline. It's a sort of, I would say, it's not for me, M&A, but it's more an inorganic business development. We have today, with this type of approach, and where we leverage our financial capacities and capacity to find PPAs, cooperate PPAs, which we refer to them, so to accelerate their development. It's not very expensive. By the way, the way we remunerate them is according to de-risking the projects step after step. Okay. To be honest as well, if a tender is too aggressive, we are not there just to make megawatts. It's not a question of gigawatts plus gigawatts. It's a question of, at the end, to be, again, I have my metrics, which we approve projects.
If we reach 10% of equity IRR after farm down or not, we don't approve. That's clear that in one of the tender, teams came back to us, and we said, "No, it's too low." That's life. It's a question and discussion on the Dunkirk offshore wind round in France, where we were Ørsted, and both of us were perfectly in agreement. I can tell you when my friend of Ørsted told me it's too low, I stopped immediately. Okay.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from.
One of the difference in this tender, is not really the cost, the CapEx, et cetera. It's the assumption that you will take on the tail, which means if you take an assumption to be reasonable, you take the present price, you take $ 40 per megawatt. On after 15 or 20 years, you have one approach. If you believe that the power price will go up to $ 70 or $ 80 per megawatt, of course you change your bid. This type of game for me, it's a casino. I prefer not to put the money of Total in this type of game. I prefer to, frankly. This is exactly the type of game that some players are playing today, which is just to take, and have very aggressive assumptions on the long term.
That maybe because we do not know enough this segment or because, on the contrary, we believe that the more we will have renewables in the system, the more it could imply some lowering the cost of electricity and energy. We are not ready to play that. Okay, next question.
Your next question comes from the line of Henry Tarr from Berenberg. Please ask your question.
Hi, thanks for taking my question. Two, please. One on the renewable diesel business. I think you have a target of 70% for share of waste and residues in terms of feedstock. You say you've acquired, I think, or secured half of that now. What type of feedstock have you secured so far? Would you see the need to vertically integrate into the feedstock market? I guess we've seen a lot of companies announcing new renewable diesel capacity, but it seems as though the pool of waste and residues is limited. My second question would be around, how you view the economics of EV charging versus your conventional liquids marketing business and what the ultimate market size might be, you think, across electric mobility versus that current liquid fuels business.
You're talking about $ 100 million of cash flow from operations additional from the electric business over the next 10 years, but ultimately the current liquids business is likely to come under pressure as EVs come through. Any thoughts around that would be great. Thank you.
On the first question, I would just preempt it a little because there are some commercial discussions.
Yes.
As you just said, there are quite a lot of competition for the feedstock. We have decided, in conjunction with one of our big partner and supplier, not to reveal anything about it. First, because he has himself today some contracts, and that coming to us by 2024 could have some impact for him. I can tell you that it's clearly something very important, like I think Bernard told you. I would say 40% of the 70% are guaranteed, but we cannot reveal anything about it, respecting our commercial agreements. It was for me, a fundamental, as Bernard explained you, it was fundamental before to take the decision to invest. Bernard, did you have something else to do on the, or maybe on the other part or the other 30% to cover? Where are you?
Yes. The rest will be, of course, covered by vegetable oil, mainly rapeseed oil, coming from local areas. It's not so much an issue. Just Henry was making a comment that he thinks that the resources will be limited. What we showed basically is that there is 25 million tons today, just half of it today is dedicated to biofuel. After, it's a matter of press point, of course, there is still some room to further increase the pool. On top of it, as we see, thanks to the collection rate increasing, we see this pool increasing as well over time. Securing now is key, there will be more to come, I think, in the next 10 years as well.
Mm-hmm. EV, it's for Alexis, this one.
Thank you, Henry, for your question. I think there is no doubt that today the EV profitability metrics are not as dynamic as the conventional business. If you look at the average return of marketing and services, it's over 20%. It's normal because it's a mature business, whereas EV is starting. We are a bit, as we are explaining in the renewable business, we target above 10%. I think it's important for us to start this process, to take position. As I said in my speech, the next five years are key because the rate, the pace will accelerate after. It's important that we take position, which are profitable above 10%, and the returns will come after.
After that, in terms of strategy, it's obvious that My presentation was on purpose, focused on Europe, because this is where it's happening, but Total is an international company present in various continents. I think our portfolio management of activities with the different maturity of fuel versus EV allows us to stay quite profitable and deliver cash flow from operations growing for the next 10 years.
Great. Thanks.
Thank you, Henry.
Our next question comes from the line of Paul Cheng from Scotiabank. Please ask your question.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Two questions, please. First, Patrick, based on your current business plan, when you believe you will reach the economy of scale, where the low carbon power business will be cash flow break even, and when it will be cash flow positive, and what is that economy of scale? A similar question is on the e-mobility investment. When you think you will reach the cash flow break even? Also whether you will consider and when, in the quarterly results, you will break out a low carbon power generation business as an individual segment and provide the full financial impact of that. We on Wall Street will be able to do a better job in understanding and evaluating that. The second question is on the post 2025. Your game plan seems to suggest you expect an acceleration in the energy transition.
From that standpoint, how should we look at your percent of your CapEx shift, whether that you're still talking about 85% in the legacy business and 15% in the low carbon power business, or that is going to shift quite significantly? Thank you.
When do we look at this specifically? Same for renewable. I'm trying to catch the last question because I.
The last question is that, as in your business plan here seems to suggest post 2025, we will see an acceleration in the energy transition. How that is going to impact on your capital allocation? Are we still going to see 15% in the low carbon power business and 85% in the legacy oil and gas business, or that percentage, that ratio will change dramatically?
Not dramatically, but what we mentioned in the presentation is that we think that we'll go up to 20%, and a little more, we say more than 20, but let's say 20% by the second half of the decade. It's 15% for the coming five years and then 20%. It's not dramatic. As long as we can maintain this, I would say light capital model, but based again on the idea of low interest rate. There is no dramatic change in that picture because, again, this is a point. Because it's related also to your first question, which is that all right, of course we want to deliver one day some net cash flow positive. In fact, if more we invest, of course, the more we generate cash flow.
I think the net cash flow positive will appear the second part of the decade. I don't have a precise model to tell you, but the second part of the decade. Thank you.
Whether the company will consider to change the reporting and break down the low-carbon business into an individual segment and provide perhaps the full P&L so that we can do a better job in understanding and evaluating it.
I think we will give you, like we have begun, more and more information about it. The structure has already changed. We have provided you quarterly results since the first quarter, more and more clarity on it. We don't intend, to be clear, the organization we have with gas, renewables, and power has some value because it's in the integration of gas and power. I don't intend to change the organization of the company, and we like the reporting to be in line with, I would say, our own organization, in terms of accountability, internal accountability. Again, I think today is premature because it must be material, and there is a question of materiality over that. Between today and 2025, for sure, there will still be some change in the reporting way.
What I can ensure is that you will be able to have some metrics which will allow you to better see the growth of it and, I would say, the development of this business, in terms of capacities, in terms of productions. We will organize the reporting. Because our intent, obviously, is to be attractive to the market. We'll give the figures which will allow you to compare what we do within Total with some companies which are in that business, the renewables and power business.
Thank you.
Yeah. Next question comes from the line of Jason Kenney from Santander. Please ask your question.
Hi there. Thanks. Actually, it's just a point of clarification, if I may. On the Total Eren option, I think you can take a 100% stake from 2023 versus 29% stake today. Do all of your renewable power targets include a 100% stake by 2025 or a 29% stake? Either way, what contribution or what is needed to take that 100% stake in 2023?
We have two scenarios. At the end it's neither one nor the other question. You will see. It's neither 100% nor 29%. They override this. Again, this will have to be evaluated. I don't want to preempt this question because world is changing very quickly, to be clear. We have also the option to IPO Total Eren, which might be an option as well. We are considering, I would say, in our figures, it's not 100%.
Okay, thanks.
The way we have taken all that is, we didn't take 100% of all the projects in the pipeline. Okay?
Understood. Thanks.
Your next question comes from the line of Felina Marquee from Macquarie . Please ask your question.
Thank you so much for allowing also shareholders to ask a question. When I look at the last 10 years, Total outperform the two closest, BP and Shell, by more than 50% of total shareholder return, despite the price, the share price being like 20% below. Of course, most of this return was achieved through a growing dividend. My question to you is that, how is it going to be the next 10 years? What can change in the next 10 years that you will not continue to outperform your peers? My second question is, last time around, when we had the disposals of renewables, the utility companies that actually had independent, floated independent companies, were able to grow much faster than the ones that didn't.
Come to mind, of course, EDF Energies Nouvelles, that you mentioned in your presentation, but also the Iberdrolas, the Enel, EDP Renewables versus the Germans that haven't done it. They were handicapped in terms of that growth. Do you think that by having a listed entity, you actually can grow much faster in terms of your renewable ambitions?
No, I don't see there is a link between being a listed company and being the rate of growth. It's a matter of capital allocation. I don't understand it. As soon as we have a clear management dedicated to a business, by the way, it's not only the management of the business unit, but having expressed the strategy today, that means that part of our time as well, part of mine, part of our time is dedicated now to grow this business. We dedicate time. It's a matter, I think, of focus to grow and of strategy. We have the facility there. We have this renewable company within Total. They have no problem to finance their projects. We know how to access the money, which is not the case to many listed companies.
I think I don't see why it should be not the same. Again, now the strategy is expressed. Up to us to be sure that we have the people dedicated. It's the way we run the business. The second question is clear to me. It will not be an excuse. The first one is what continue to outperform? I don't know. My objective is clearly to outperform both of them. That's clear. And then I would like also the stock to be rate accordingly, to be clear. Again, and I think, by the way, we have a differentiation factor today, which is our dividend, the yield we offer to investors. We'll see if it's reflected in the share price. We are the three major European, major oil and gas companies, are more or less, in fact, the same strategy.
I consider that, and this is, I hope what we have take away from this presentation, that we are in an advanced stage compared to others, but we have already some assets that we can give you some figures, but we are well engaged in it. Clear that we diverge with some of them. We consider that maintaining our oil and gas business is a condition of the transformation because it will provide to us a cash flow that we need. It's also compatible, like we show to you, with our climate ambition. In particular, again, we are today the first to announce that we can lower our Scope 3 emissions by 2030. I think, we will keep, I would say, the fundamentals of the way we run the business with a certain discipline, looking to a break-even.
At the same time, having the ambition to establish this at a large scale, this business. The way, by the way, we set the ambition is we have also looked carefully to all the names we have mentioned in the electricity competitors to see at which way and which type they want to develop their business. There is one difference, is that with this big utility, we don't have any hydro in our portfolio, which obviously, has some interest in terms of the storage of electricity. That's the difference because when all of them are speaking about renewable capacities, they, of course, taking on board the hydro capacities that we inherited from the past, and that these ones we do not have is part of the missing piece of the puzzle in our portfolio.
Our next question comes from the line of Anish Kapadia from Palissy Advisors. Please ask your question.
Good afternoon. Thanks again for all the presentations. Couple of questions. First of all, the fall in crude oil that you see in terms of sales from Total, what does this mean for the retail marketing business, which, I think previously was supposed to be a growth area now that you'll be selling less fuel? Also, any impacts on your chemicals growth plan? If you can give any updates in terms of your cash flow targets for those businesses. Secondly, there's clearly a lot of value in the Total brand, in Europe and globally. In a more connected world, there should be value in customers from their data, from cross-selling. We see a number of companies that are increasingly valued on the basis of the number of customers they have.
I was just wondering, have you thought about the value embedded in that existing customer base that you have and how further to leverage that, in terms of cross-selling and use of their data? Thank you.
Alexis is a fan of data valorization, so we leave him the second slide, the second part. By the way, I think, also the first one. I would say, let's be clear, all the marketing businesses do not have the same profitability. When Alexis mentioned that he has mature assets, about 20%. All the sales are not equivalent in terms of margins per ton. I think there are ways, and by the way, the objective, let's be clear, is to do what we have proposed by being selective about the sales, not only in terms of CO2 impact, but also in terms of margins impact. We see ways to, in fact, refocus part of the marketing business on the most profitable businesses and maybe given up the less profitable ones. You can complement, of course, and you can answer the second question, Alexis.
No, no, I completely concur with what you said. I think we have now to look at our businesses, obviously based on the CO2 emission that it generates for our customers. We have obviously to have a review our portfolio according to that. I think what was said earlier in the presentation, is also that it's not only Total who's transitioning, it's also our customers. Obviously in this marketing business, what we have to do is to transition with our customers. For example, bunkering is clear. We want to move our customers to LNG. We will do that to make sure that they buy less carbon energy from us. Obviously, if at a certain date they have not transitioned, then we will have to make decisions on the business. I think it's a very, I would say, easy mindset.
We have to help our customers to transition, and we then have to make arbitrage based on the CO2 versus the margin it generates. As for the second question, I can't read properly the question.
No, the question is just, you have plenty of data with your 10 million customers per day in your retail station. Why don't you sell it and make plenty of money with it? My question is, who will buy it, in fact? To you.
I think as a joke, we have had question of putting an IPO on our own business. If we were a digital company and selling our data, maybe we will be the same like Apple. Yes, there is value in our customer data. I think it's all about using it internally to develop the services I was mentioning. Whether extending the existing services or buying new ones. I think what is key in marketing is that our systems are not proprietary anymore. I think we have to open up to larger ecosystems, and yet there is data when you share those data with other actors of your ecosystem and create value like this. Selling them is something that we are looking at, but I don't have any specific comment to make on that.
Okay. Great. In fact, fundamentally, the idea is to develop more services to customers.
Yes.
Thanks to data. You are developing a platform, I think a digital platform to do that now. You have a project.
Clearly. I think specifically through e-mobility, electric mobility is a digital native. I mentioned to you in my presentation that along the value chain, our objective is to keep the relationship end-to-end with the customer. It seems very important that we are able to keep the customer in our system all the time. This platform that is already up and running, that gives us access to 100,000 charging points already in Europe, can connect with other ecosystems. Definitely, this is where the value of electric mobility and transition is coming from. I think it's a bit too early to give proper figures on the potential value of those services, but it's clearly the way we go forward.
Okay. Next question.
Your next question comes from the line of Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. Please ask your question.
Thanks. Thank you for taking the time to do all this. In terms of the renewables business, you've obviously got Total Eren, Total Solar, Quadran, SunPower, and it does seem quite a complicated structure. Why do you need all those different businesses? Within that, is it just geographical reach or effectively, how do you get the economies of scale for the construction companies and things like that? I'm just trying to work out practically how you make sure that those businesses aren't competing with each other in tenders.
No, they don't compete. It's not possible. It's complementary. It's organized. It's part of history. I think one day probably we'll have to put that together, it's quite clear. After that, doing E&P, I have plenty of subsidiaries, one by country, it worked well. It's not very complete, that's clear. The geography has been split. There are different entities. Some are on the distributed generation, some are more on the large solar farms. They don't compete, it's well taken into account. It seems complex to you. It's not so complex from an internal point of view. Again, the only part is that, as you said, TotalEnergies, we still are minority partners. Again, we develop them in the same way. It would be easy to reorganize if we would want to create a total renewable company on the top.
It would be easy. You will not see all these names, which is why in my presentation, you didn't see a single of these names. For me, all that is a portfolio of renewable, like we have a portfolio of E&P licenses, and I don't mention all the names of all the subsidiaries. It's just because it's still a little an infant. They like that it's entrepreneurial spirit, which we need to keep. It's also because I know that Philippe likes to keep his subsidiaries because each of them is building its business and, but also because we are in a very development mode. There is also a management advantage to keep sometimes some small entity having their own business.
As I said in my OneTech concept, it will be the right time now to think big, and if we want to think big, we need to organize that. Without asking them a lot of reporting, to be able to get the entrepreneurial spirit within the entity. Okay.
Yeah. Next question comes from the line of Thomas Adolff from Credit Suisse. Please ask your question.
Thank you. I do apologize for the ignorant question. Europe, November 2070, obviously refineries will be converted into biofuel plants, you can probably generate more money. How do you offset the loss of earnings from the petrol station as light duty transportation is electrified? Because charge points are far less profitable. Thank you.
Because you have plenty of I think the idea there is, first, by 2030 or 2050?
$50. Yes.
$50. By 2050.
Okay.
Our renewable and power business will be so large that it will largely be larger than our marketing business. The ambition is not to stop there. First question. Second, I think you have an asset in the marketing business, maybe, which are all these networks of shops.
Yes.
That's a question mark for us. When do we really, I would say, consider that not only as a complementary business to selling fuels, but as a business as itself. That's something that clearly, we have there some assets which could be valorized and, not only to sell them, as we already said, but we can also develop a convenience store business.
Yes.
Total is maybe not the best company. We could take some partners to do that. It's right, these assets could be developed. It's also true in Europe, it's also true in Africa, where we have probably one of the best network covering Africa. I think I'm not so afraid by the fact that we could lose market in sales or liquids. This is why we need to embark in all these multi-energy business, including in marketing and services. Alexis will soon establish, by the way, a business unit dedicated to all these new energies, not being as an annex of the liquid fuels, but as an independent business unit in order to have its own strategy to grow the business. You want to?
No, I just want to concur. In the strategy that we presented earlier this year, especially on Europe, we show that we have an objective of generating 40% of our cash flows in Europe from non-fuel revenues. This is clearly coming from the shop and from all the associated services linked to the mobility, whether it is car washes, tolls, especially for trucks, whether it is car parks and so on. I think this is a complementary business. Whether you are charging on EV, you will still be mobile and you will still need to have the convenience of shopping in a nearby shop. I think this is something that we are looking at very clearly.
Thomas, just a figure. If you take the figures which was given to you by Alexis, out of the $2 billion of cash flow per year coming from Marketing & Services, the fuel sales represent $ 1.3 billion, $ 1.4 billion.
Yes.
Two-thirds. It's interesting because it's stable, it's predictable, it's less volatility. It's right, we like this business, but at the scale of the company and 2050, it's not such a challenge.
Thank you.
We will now be taking our last question from the line of Irene Himona from Societe Generale. Please ask your question.
Thank you very much. I had a question on renewables, if I may. Clearly, you explained the competitive advantages that you enjoy versus local utilities, your global reach, your trading capabilities. If we take this week's specific deal in Spain, you said that this 5 GW portfolio in Spain, thanks to your electricity trading capabilities, enables you to actually supply and cover all of your European sites with green electricity. I wonder if you can talk a little bit about what or how does the trading platform of Total need to adapt and change its model? Clearly, you cannot move or they cannot move the electrons. It's not the same as physically moving a barrel of oil. What sort of new innovations, or how does the model adapt and change? Does that create perhaps some different type of risks for that operation? Thank you.
Yeah, it's an excellent question. By the way, it's not the 5 GW , it's 3 GW out of the five that we need for our own operations. It's the same question. Your question is valid. It was a long discussion, and in fact, at the end, it was a combination of internally of, on one side, the renewable people who are very happy to have a corporate PPA. The refining people and chemical people were quite happy to have a green electricity at a good price. In the middle, there was a pressure on the trading. Philippe, you can elaborate on the management of this risk. By the way, one of the idea also is to probably promote the interconnection between Spain and France politically. Can you take the questions?
Well, first, what you have to realize is that we have not started yesterday to develop power trading, and we have been active in power trading and trading power across Europe since now more than 15 - 20 years. I was reading very recently of the ambition in power trading in terms of megawatt-hour traded. We were advocating that we were a large trader, and we were giving our mission for 2025. We are already at this level today. We know that business. Yes, it's a very different business compared to oil trading. We need to balance our position half an hour by half an hour, where a lot of conviction, especially in countries like Spain, where there is limited interconnection between the continental Europe.
We take into account, we can, of course, use some physical assets, and the CCGTs that we have can allow us to edge our position on one side. We are developing also batteries on the other. Most of the flexibility will come from our ability to trade on the market and to resell or buy the power that we need to sell in Spain when we have too much and buy the power in the countries where we will not have enough in order to supply our entities. It is something that we know what to do. True that the extent of the contract is massive and is forcing us to develop a specialized team in order to address that.
I like this. It was the last question. I like the question because it's fine. For this question, I think you touch the real value that a large oil and gas company like an integrated company can bring to this business of renewables and power. It's exactly when we speak about integration there. Part of the answer will be sure that when we take on board such contracts, we immediately think, okay, then that means that we need to have more storage assets with type of assets in order to build a business. That's the beginning, I think, of a new creation of value. I think, first of all, I would like to thank all of you for your participation. Sorry, it has been a little long, four hours and 30 minutes. I thank you because there were many questions along these two hours of Q&A.
I'm sure you have more, and we will have the following weeks to come back to you and to answer to more of your questions. I think, really, that this is, as I said, for us, an important day because we have put together and because, again, the strategy to transform Total into this broad energy company. I think it's a very interesting challenge. We are also convinced with the board of directors that this is the right direction, as I said, to accelerate and to answer and to convince now investors that this model is one of the right model in order to grow and in these fields. With, again, having maintaining our core business that we need, and to generate the cash flows, and then to accelerate progressively the ambition ongoing on renewables and power to generate new cash flows. There is a virtual circle.
The last year that we spent, again, getting the fruits of all what we have prepared during the years before, make us confident that we can develop this model. I hope we will convince more and more investors and that Total will be able to convince black and greens for the benefit of our shareholders. Thank you for your attention.