[MUSIC] Obviously, there are drawbacks to nuclear power. Cost overruns, time overruns for the reactors, the storage issues around nuclear waste, etc. However, if we accept that climate change is a global crisis and that both the climate and energy challenge of the 21st century is the key transformative challenge that we need to address. Then surely these concerns, the ones you mentioned around low carbon as an energy source for nuclear should trump all the other concerns shouldn't they? If we really want to address this crisis and get on top of it. >> Well, I'm afraid I don't necessarily agree. One of the questions you have is, what is the most cost-effective way to address this crisis. We're talking about a huge investment into a nation's energy system, frequently from other countries. We're talking about unproven technology. We're talking resultant electricity at a significantly higher price than any renewable energy. There are arguments on both sides. And you will find people on both the pro and anti-nuclear side adamant and difficult to shift on their positions. I think what's important is to try to develop a conversation, a conversation between the proponents and the opponents to understand where common ground can be found, and whether or not there is a way in which nuclear has a really functional role to play in a more distributed energy system. One of the areas I think is definitely worth exploring is developments in modular reactors, so that it's possible to actually get out and deploy small-scale, stable, well built, reliable sources of nuclear power in distributed areas. The challenge that I find is the large scale investment in nuclear power within a centralized system simply encourages the status quo. And one of the things that does need to be addressed is the more we stick to the status quo, the less we're asking our policy makers, our financiers, and society to actually address the need that transition is a requirement for survival. >> I would focus very much on the advantages that it could bring to the global crisis in dealing with the waste. The very, very minimal risk of incident. These are things which are more local considerations and local consumers will have to, in a way, bear them. But I don't think it's beyond the pale that there's a certain type of commitment that could be made to innovate, to process in ways in which we have not yet. Indeed, there's certain technologies which I think the industry, perhaps, has a bit of an image problem. Too expensive, too late, because we're perpetually pursuing very complex reactor designs when there's actually some simpler models and perhaps even smaller modular opportunities that that's where we should be focusing on the future of nuclear. Not necessarily, reinventing the wheel with every project. Which, I think, is one of the reasons that the European energy industry and political classes have soured on the technology to a certain extent. But then you look at the United Kingdom and in the midst of very uncertain political circumstances, a clear committment being made to the role that that technology can play in furthering some of the most aggressive climate change and carbon budgets that we've ever seen. So I think that if we were to look for an example of what nuclear can do, that's been embraced in Britain, and I would imagine others will be following suit as they look to their INBCs. And they've made commitments to reduce emissions in ways which many policymakers have never even considered. The number of climate change targets that are out there basically doubled, more than doubled, with the advent of the Paris Agreement. And those, nuclear does offer a clear solution for some markets. >> Well, I think nuclear, many people see as having a role. It's a technology that's been around for a while. And when it's not down for maintenance, it provides a 24-hour supply of energy. So there are advantages. I think the disadvantages come with factoring the life cycle cost which is particularly the back end cost of waste is rarely factored into the price. The difficulty of finding any real free market in nuclear energy comes with much greater subsidy packages then are normally associated with renewables. And then, of course, there are the security and proliferation dynamics. Which to be frank, if you want to hedge and think that your state might need nuclear weapons in the future, then building up a civil nuclear infrastructure is a way of providing your state with that hedge. And I think these elements are ones that aren't looked at sufficiently. And neither are the hazards posed by nuclear reactors to attack, be it in war or terrorist attack, issues which simply don't arise with renewables. >> You could of course argue that we would be able technologically to switch, for example, to thorium reactors to produce nuclear energy not from uranium but from other sources that cannot be used in the same way for- >> Indeed. >> Military purposes. >> Thorium reactors may be fusion reactors, but they're not there yet. So the renewable sector is developing, and it is there. And if there are safe and secure, proliferation-free, and attack resistant nuclear options, then we should consider them actively and certainly pursue research in these areas but right now this is not deliverable technology. >> You've made the argument in the past that, looking at France, for example, or Japan, that there was a strategic build-out of the nuclear fleet or nuclear energy production. For strategic purposes, because France wanted to shift away from its reliance on Middle Eastern oil, for example. And wanted to have an energy source that was more reliable, producing sufficient electricity at home. So they incurred additional cost of every reactor and they made a very strategic calculation that it was worth it. If you look at climate change as the overriding issue, that is really very important for us to deal with effectively as a world community. Couldn't we make a similar strategic calculation that given all the negatives that you've already named, it is still worth pursuing because we need to urgently push into this low carbon direction? >> We might do, I think one of the problems with nuclear is there's a very long lead time for decade or so between commissioning a reactor and getting it up and running. So the lead times are very slow and we frankly are running out of time. But the French example is interesting. I think the French elite culture with its need to develop nuclear weapons had a strong infrastructure and political desire to develop nuclear energy, but at that time in the early 70s the renewables were a developing option as well. And I think if you look at the capital investment and subsidy that the French put in. And say, well, it's hard to be retroactive on these things, but you look at the impact to that investment in the renewable sector, then I think you can see at least as good outcome as for France today without the potential security and other defects. [MUSIC]
