[MUSIC] >> Compared to fossil fuels you can argue that nuclear is a low carbon energy source. That could provide us with electricity going forward in this climate constrained or carbon constrained world. And a number of countries have decided to expand their civilian nuclear programs. China, India and others who are investing in new reactors. What's the future of nuclear? >> In the UK we've got going through at the moment. And if you look at the commercial of nuclear. Leaving aside the fact that it's got a dangerous legacy. You have thousands of years' worth of radioactive material you've got to deal with. And we don't really yet know how we're going to deal with that. If you look at it on a pure, play commercial basis, nuclear power is really, it's four times the price of renewable energy. Why would you want to build that station? The stations when they're built inevitably come in massively over budget. They always do. Why would you want to do that? They're feeding an infrastructure system based on old models where you have a massive base load. The future looks far more distributed, smaller energy systems located nearer where people are using the energy. >> It just seems to be pointless. There's no reason to implement nuclear energy stations any more. Why would you do it? You can go down a renewable energy route, that's clean. You don't have any of the other implications of radioactive waste and it's a quarter of the price. Why do you need it? >> We're often seeing nuclear lumped into the renewables basket, and well first of all, we should be clear, it's not renewable. There's a supply chain, uranium needs to be mined, processed, transported. But the big issue is that the carbon footprint of the nuclear industry is actually quite high. Some academics have calculated it to be very similar to gas. So it's not really a low carbon alternative. It may be a lower carbon alternative than burning coal. But it is ultimately not a low carbon alternative. And many of the calculations really don't include the full cost of decommissioning, decontamination. And the storage of nuclear fuel which can be very energy intensive. And often involves [INAUDIBLE]. And also the amount of concrete that's being used in the current generation of nuclear power plants. You just look at the carbon footprint of that. [LAUGH] And the number of years that it would take, just on concrete alone to achieve some kind of carbon balance. And the whole supply chain. And the whole life-cycle. And the whole decommissioning. From what I've seen, it's not a low-carbon alternative, nuclear in its current form. People talk about maybe nuclear reactors. We still have the nuclear proliferation issue. There's a security issue. And, there's the long term waste issue. Is this something that we want, this legacy to our planet, too. It's not even our grandchildren [LAUGH], it's like tens of thousands of years. >> Now, a number of countries, like Germany and others, have decided to phase out nuclear. But then there are countries, major economies, around the world who've decided to build new generations of nuclear power generation. So, for example, China and India, who are building new civilian nuclear energy generation. So what do we say to these, who are clearly doing that for a reason. They want to have a diverse energy portfolio, where they want to meet growing energy needs. And they see nuclear as providing lots of households with electricity as one of the solutions. How could we address that? >> And I think we need to show that there are alternative solutions. Renewable energy, I think China has got one of the most aggressive concentrated solar programs. They have established a program [INAUDIBLE] technology. That is an alternative to nuclear. It's based load renewable, low carbon renewable. And so there are alternatives to nuclear. There's no unique attribute of nuclear that makes it essential to be part anybody's portfolio. >> The thing about nuclear that makes it incredibly appealing, is its pretty much no carbon nature. There is obviously carbon tied up in the development of the actual power plants. The challenge we have with nuclear is a more complex one. Environmentalists have concerns about it. There are concerns about accidents, the impact of it. In China, one can completely understand the desire to build nuclear as part of a wider portfolio. Simply because China's energy demands are growing so fast. I would say there are valid concerns about security and reliability. One of the challenges with the technology being used in the UK. Is that as yet that technology being deployed in other countries still hasn't been completed. I think it is unarguable that nuclear could contribute a very positive impact on a power portfolio in terms of providing base load power. Perhaps as a proponent of renewable energy one of the challenges I find with nuclear. Is the fact that it cannot be turned up and down. Which means that it's incredibly hard to integrate nuclear into a system with a large amount of renewables. Again, this is going to be one of those challenges. That policy makers, investors, technologists are going to have to grapple with over the next few years. >> I think nuclear has a very bright future, no pun intended, it's a technology that's got a very consistent historical record. And is I think quite well suited to the manner in which demand profiles are likely to be projected. Against the growth of certain economies, particularly in Asia. There's a particular type of energy requirement, a load that needs to be served and nuclear is quite well suited to that. And it's interesting to note that at a time when we're so focused on climate change. And certain national governments are making the strongest possible statements about the need to decarbonize. Mitigate the climate change. And really change their energy economies, they're taking a zero carbon source out of the mix. I would look at this from a couple of different points of view. Clearly, one of the things that governments can do to encourage more investment into the evolution of their energy economies. Is drive certain types of retirement profiles. And indeed force certain capacity off of the system. However, it really defies logic in a carbon constrained world. That the capacity that's being singled out. Is one that doesn't contribute negatively to climate change relative to other sources. So the German example is an interesting one. That you would leave a very carbon intense, lignite base load unit on the system, but take a nuclear one off. It doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense, at least from the point of view of climate outcomes. But nuclear power has always been very divisive, in a way within the environmental movement. You get a broad base of opinion on one side or the other. Many advocating its role in addressing the climate crisis, myself would be included in that. But on the other side, those that are much more aware and focused on the implications of atomic energy. In a more general environmental sense, the issues of waste. And when nuclear goes bad, it goes very bad indeed. And I think that that camp actually has part of the public opinion's attention right now. In a way which policy makers and indeed the energy industry could perhaps do a better job of making a case for atomic energy. And things do move rather quickly. If you look forward to the future of the Japanese energy mix on the basis of the kind of trends that we're seeing today. There's going to be more nuclear energy generated in Japan in 2020 than there was before the Fukushima disaster. So, in a way, things can move forward. And some of the steps that we've seen in Belgium, in Germany, look a little ad hoc. And not necessarily contributing positively in the way which some policy makers may perceive. Indeed the German case again, not to belabor the point, is quite interesting. That there's still a certain amount of atomic energy that's generated across the border in France. That flows in to support the German economy but no questions about that being an issue, at least as yet. And I think that points to the irrationality of the policy. [MUSIC]
