0:00

Hi, Meren Talks Money. Listeners, I've got a

0:02

new column out at Bloomberg dot Com. It's all

0:04

about ices. We're coming up to iSER season.

0:07

We all love an iSER, we all like to be an iSER

0:09

millionaire. But are ice is good

0:11

for the country as well as good for you?

0:13

Now, that's a question we've got to ask. Because this is a

0:15

tax break, are we using it properly?

0:18

There's a case to be made for the brit

0:20

iSER only allowing you to

0:22

invest your iSER money in companies

0:25

actually listed in the UK. You

0:27

can read the argument for that at Bloomberg dot Com.

0:30

At the same place, you can also find columns from Bloomberg's

0:32

many other brilliant columnists, and be sure to subscribe

0:34

for access to insightful stories, data videos,

0:37

podcasts, and much more. Welcome

0:43

to Meren Talks Money, the podcast in which people who

0:45

know the markets explain the markets. I'm meren'sumset

0:48

Web. This week, a conversation about

0:50

the UK's future energy mix with Kafrinport

0:52

and independent energy consultant at what Logic,

0:55

and after my conversation with Catherine, stay tuned

0:57

for a conversation with Bloomberg energy reporter

1:00

John Morrison Yadron.

1:02

Hello, thank you so much for joining yesterday.

1:04

My pleasure.

1:04

Okay, we're going to dive right in with a super

1:07

easy question. Isn't it zero possible by

1:09

twenty fifty?

1:10

Probably not?

1:11

Is it desirable?

1:12

Now, that's a very interesting question. I

1:14

think that we have been focusing

1:17

very single mindedly on carbon dioxide,

1:19

and some of the policies that we've been adopting

1:22

in pursuit of that aim have caused

1:24

other harms and are causing other harms that aren't

1:26

really getting the attention that they need. I

1:28

did some work recently looking at the critical minerals

1:31

required for the energy transition and the

1:33

huge increase in mining that's going to be

1:35

needed. And the problem with mining is

1:37

it's very environmentally harmful.

1:39

It's often taking place

1:42

in countries which are quite arid,

1:44

so issues around water supply, keep

1:46

maintaining clean water, availability of water

1:49

for agriculture and human consumption are quite

1:51

significant. Blasting and so

1:53

on causes a lot of air pollution, and

1:55

you have huge challenges with managing the rights

1:57

of indigenous peoples on whose land or

2:00

underneath whose land these resources are often

2:02

found, and often that you have a

2:04

lot of labor and human

2:07

rights abuses associated with them.

2:09

Can I just take you back and ask you about water.

2:11

I think a lot of people won't understand quite how water

2:13

intensive mining is.

2:15

Yeah, So the issue with water comes up

2:17

in a few different ways. One is that miners

2:20

often deliberately remove water from the

2:22

water table to reduce the risk of

2:24

flooding in their minds. That have been studies

2:26

in South Africa that have shown that

2:29

water table levels might take more

2:31

than a century to recover, and this

2:34

affects mooreholes that are being used for

2:36

local people's consumption and for

2:38

agriculture. Water is

2:40

also used quite extensively in

2:42

the processing and extraction of the minerals

2:44

from the rock, and so they're

2:47

taking that water away is then unavailable

2:49

for other uses. Then the third

2:51

area where you have an impact is that

2:54

there's a lot of waste material from mining

2:56

and the extraction of metals

2:58

from are and you get

3:00

what's called tailings, and they're usually stored

3:02

in these ponds and all

3:05

sorts of contaminants can leach out of

3:07

those ponds into local

3:09

water sources, whether that's fresh water or

3:11

seawater. And then that also gets

3:14

into the food chain, both

3:16

marine let's say, fish, and so on

3:18

and then people eat the fish and get sick or just straightforward

3:21

drinking the water, and so it has

3:23

a really significant impact. And

3:25

we've seen in South America there's been increasing

3:28

social pressure against mining.

3:30

So in Panama recently they closed a very large

3:33

copper mine as a result of basically

3:35

political pressure, and now

3:38

it's a lot harder to open new mines. And

3:40

so you have a population of people, particularly

3:42

in South America and what's called the lithium

3:44

triangle. I'm really

3:46

objecting to new.

3:47

Extraction in Pritus and Chile. You haven't there

3:50

around lithium minds that.

3:51

Exactly, they're objecting to mining.

3:53

They're objecting to extraction that they

3:55

say not unreasonably. Then they're not receiving

3:58

a fair share of the economic benefits

4:01

of all of this. But then on the other hand,

4:03

you have populations in low

4:05

lying Pacific islands and in the Indian

4:07

Ocean i am, you know, clamoring

4:10

for more action on climate change. So you have two

4:12

populations in fairly

4:14

sort of underdeveloped and more

4:16

deprived parts of the world with

4:19

very conflicting sets

4:21

of interests, and so

4:24

far there really hasn't been any effort to

4:26

balance those and sitting here in the UK,

4:29

or what right do we have anyway to

4:31

say which rights are better

4:33

than which are the rights and all the rest of it. So

4:37

I think that we need to start thinking in

4:40

a more holistic way about what

4:42

we're doing. And you realize

4:44

that common dioxide is only one part of the

4:46

puzzle. If we don't have enough

4:49

drinking water, then having clean air isn't

4:51

going to be that much of a comfort.

4:52

Yeah, I'm maintaining with agriculture and so on.

4:54

So there's massive downsides to what we're trying to do exactly,

4:57

Okay, So let's talk then about

4:59

what the ideal energy mix

5:02

would be.

5:03

Right.

5:03

So we spent a lot of time in the UK, in

5:06

particular under wind energy

5:08

and solar energy and trying

5:10

to up the level of these particular renewables

5:13

into our energy mix. So we reached a limit.

5:15

Do you think of what we can do there?

5:17

I think so.

5:19

I think solar has some contribution, but it's very

5:21

much at the margin because in our

5:23

times with peak energy demand, it's

5:26

just not sunny, you know, winter evenings,

5:29

and we haven't found a way of seasonal

5:31

storage for energy yet it's not one that works

5:34

within Britain. We don't have seasonal

5:36

hydro capability because

5:38

of our geology, so until some

5:41

other technology is developed, it allows us

5:43

to store electricity from the summer

5:45

to the winter. That is really not that

5:47

useful.

5:47

Okay, So so simply doesn't work for us beyond

5:50

a certain Yeah, I mean it's.

5:52

Nice to have.

5:53

It feels a bit good as at the margin,

5:55

but without a way to storage at

5:57

least overnight, if not seasonally, it's kind

5:59

of points you really need.

6:01

To have seasonal storage to move your solar

6:03

from the summer to the winter.

6:04

Yeah. And we have a similar problem surely with wind

6:07

and there's not so much seasonal

6:09

but intermittent.

6:10

Yeah.

6:10

And intermittency is the big problem with renewables

6:12

because our grid is not designed to deal with it,

6:15

and because we need to create a

6:17

constant backup system to

6:19

deal with the intermittiency.

6:20

That's exactly right. And so it's

6:23

extremely expensive. And this

6:25

notion that renewables are cheap because all

6:27

the wind is free is extremely

6:29

naive because you have to build

6:32

at least the same capacity again either

6:34

as alternative generation or as storage

6:36

to bridge those gaps when it's not windy. So straightway

6:39

that costs money. But then also

6:41

you have a lot more expenditure on the grid

6:43

because now this renewable

6:46

generation is very distributed, so

6:48

instead of having one big lump of generation

6:50

in one place with one cable connecting

6:52

it, now you need lots more cables.

6:56

And then also you have to manage the moment by moment

6:58

intermittency, so this is called balancing,

7:01

and the balancing costs have gone up by billions

7:03

of pounds a year recently. So all

7:05

of these costs are added on to consumer bills,

7:08

and it's why if you look at a chart of

7:11

retail versus wholesale electricity

7:13

prices since the beginning of the century, you

7:15

see that retail prices have just gone up sharply,

7:18

whereas wholesale prices sort of wiggled

7:20

around and done some other path.

7:23

And it wasn't really until September twenty twenty

7:25

one that wholesale prices really drove the

7:27

retail price, because they then rose

7:30

very significantly. But otherwise

7:32

that relationship hasn't been that strong because

7:35

the retail price has contained all sorts of

7:37

other elements, wind subsidies

7:39

in particular.

7:40

So when we'd hold that wind is cheap, it is

7:42

not taking account of

7:45

the backup power, the

7:47

cost to expand the grid to figure

7:49

out the balancing and possibly also

7:52

the adding environmental cost of the

7:54

rare earth metals, etc. That we

7:56

need to create the components.

7:58

Absolutely not and it doesn't so it doesn't

8:00

include the direct costs that currently

8:02

go on to consumer bills. So consumers

8:05

don't see that rare earth environmental cost, but

8:07

they definitely see the extra grid cost because

8:09

the network component of bills has gone

8:11

up.

8:11

They see the.

8:12

Extra balancing cost because that also comes

8:14

in through the network component. Now,

8:16

when I did this work on critical minerals recently,

8:19

I went from being a little bit sort of neutral

8:22

I think maybe we should pause the whole wind

8:24

roll out while we upgrade our grid,

8:27

to actually been quite negative because

8:29

once you understand the huge amounts

8:31

of additional copper and aluminium that

8:34

are required to support that build

8:36

out, and they are the two minerals

8:38

that are going to be mostly required for the energy

8:40

transition, the increase in aluminium

8:43

and copper supply will have to be

8:46

very significant, much bigger than everything else.

8:48

I mean, it takes ten years and billions of pounds

8:51

to develop a new mine, and

8:54

all those other challenges we mentioned earlier, it

8:56

starts to actually look morally questionable, and

8:58

so I think more sensible strategy

9:01

is to go for nuclear where it

9:04

fits in with the way grids were designed and

9:06

it doesn't have the intermittency problem. So yes,

9:08

nuclear has very high capital costs. Once

9:11

you've built it there, it can run for sixty years.

9:14

It's extremely safe. Nuclear and solar

9:16

have the lowest deaths by unit of

9:18

electricity generation of all generation technologies.

9:21

Okay, that's unexpected, and make sure for most people,

9:24

I would say.

9:24

Yes, it is unexpected, but that absent

9:27

Chernobyl. Aside from Chernobyl, there have been no nuclear

9:30

reated related deaths from any nuclear

9:32

incident worldwide.

9:34

Huma, for example, there were no death related

9:36

to that. The deaths around that were related to the tsunami,

9:39

not.

9:39

Exactly so at the

9:42

the consumer plant itself there were some fatalities,

9:45

but this was because you know, things

9:47

fell on people's heads during the earthquake

9:49

and tsunami. That's not a nuclear

9:52

incident. That's just an earthquake related

9:54

incident. And so you get industrial

9:56

accidents. And that's why even with

9:59

solar, for example, non zero deaths

10:01

associated with solar. Obviously

10:03

solar panels themselves are completely inert.

10:07

But then if you look in the mining industry.

10:09

The mining industry is extremely dangerous,

10:11

very high levels. In fact, all extraction industries

10:14

oil and gas is the same, and

10:16

coal and so on, so all of these other

10:19

industries. And then of course if you're using those

10:21

materials to build your generation,

10:24

then that it's within that supply chain, and

10:27

renewables wind in particularly you get

10:29

working at height issues as well. So yeah,

10:32

nuclear has a very strong is you're only.

10:34

In mining, not as dangerous as some other kinds

10:36

of mining, but.

10:37

There's just less of that.

10:37

You need so little, yes, that it doesn't make any

10:39

difference. Yeah, I wrote about this reason. You're actually saying

10:42

that you're only miss so interesting because it's the most

10:44

price insensitive thing in the world because

10:46

you only need a tiny bit of it in each nuclear

10:49

plant. But without it you can't do anything, so

10:51

you'll pay anything for it, so it's not to have to shut

10:53

the thing down, right, Yeah, Okay,

10:56

let's go back briefly. I want to come back to nuclear and

10:58

how it's financed and how we should do that, but

11:01

let's go back to the grid. So the grid is initially

11:04

designed to have these big power stations in

11:06

the middle of the country, is

11:08

sending out constant power of heartbeat

11:10

and never stops, etc. Even with nuclear,

11:12

if we're going to have a lot more electrification, even

11:15

with that, we'd still.

11:16

Need to upgrade the grid.

11:17

Right, Yes, you need to build

11:19

more generation and you'd need to upgrade the grid,

11:21

but it's a much smaller challenge

11:24

if you're not doing it using a lot

11:26

of intermittent generation. It's the

11:28

fact that we're having all this intermittency which

11:30

requires a doubling of capacity. So

11:32

you need all of the reliable

11:34

capacity that you can call on your thermal

11:37

and nuclear generation as

11:39

well as the wind, and

11:41

it will be much more economically effective and

11:43

a better use of resources to just

11:46

have that and not have the wind. And

11:48

obviously you're not going to want the thermal because

11:50

of the the carbon emissions,

11:52

but you can have the nuclear which doesn't have

11:54

the emissions problem.

11:56

Okay, again, I want to come back to Nikle. I'm

11:58

gonna put that one side because I think you're I

12:00

probably both agree that this is the answer, the only

12:02

answer. Everyon want to move away from a fossil fueld. So

12:04

let's go back and talk about fossil fuels a

12:06

little. Because it's hard to imagine a world without

12:08

them. Right, So when we have let's stop

12:10

oil throwing souper around the place, et cetera. Even

12:14

everybody's plans for net zero still

12:16

have us using fossil fuels, right,

12:18

Even in net zero plans, It don't go away, even

12:21

in the most ambitious, ambitious plans that anybody

12:23

has. And even now when the whole world of talking

12:26

about reducing fossil fuel use,

12:29

coal and oil and gas

12:31

use is still rising. Right, we might be able to make them

12:33

slightly fall as a percentage of use,

12:36

but not much.

12:38

No, even in Britain, not coal use,

12:40

but oil and gas use has increased in recent

12:42

years.

12:43

So when we talk about in the UK

12:45

not not using the

12:48

shell gas that we could get

12:50

access to if we wanted to, and not producing

12:53

any more licenses for exploration

12:55

and production in the North Sea, this is just

12:57

silly.

12:58

It is.

12:58

Yeah, So I think the shell questions a little

13:00

bit different when it comes to the North Sea.

13:03

We should really maximize

13:05

the potential of the North Sea and

13:08

guess as much out of it as we possibly can,

13:10

because the alternative is just imports. And

13:12

then people say, oh, yes, but you know it

13:14

has to travel around anyway because we

13:17

don't have all the refining capacity, but we still

13:19

control the production emissions, and we do have some refining

13:21

capacity, so that argument doesn't

13:23

really stack up. As soon as you're importing,

13:26

you really lose control of the supply chain. With

13:29

shale, it's a little bit different because although given

13:31

adeology, we're fairly confident that the gas

13:34

is there, we can't

13:36

be it's confident that it can be extracted economically.

13:39

And if you look at Poland as an example, you

13:41

know, the Polish would crawl over hot coals

13:44

to avoid buying gas from Russia,

13:47

and they looked at shale quite extensively,

13:49

and in the end they concluded that L and G would be a

13:51

better approach to get the more Russian gas,

13:54

and so that's the route that they've taken. So it's

13:56

not given that that can be economically.

13:59

Extracted go back

14:01

to the North Sea. So, if I understand

14:03

you, rightly, is suggesting that there's really become of

14:05

almost a moral imperative to

14:08

continue to the extent that we can

14:10

produce our own oil and gas,

14:12

because at least we can control it,

14:14

control its production, control the way it's taken

14:16

out, control the way people who work

14:18

on those rigs are treated, etc. So if

14:21

we don't pull it out ourselves, we're going to

14:23

be importing it, correct and we

14:26

it's a huge sort of revenue for the treasury,

14:29

So it's just crazy to import

14:31

it when we could produce it ourselves. And

14:33

the windfall tax terrible.

14:36

I mean the windfall tax was introduced because

14:38

of political outrage and public outrage

14:41

around people like Shell and BP earning

14:43

huge profits. Now I

14:45

kind of object to that a little bit because nobody's

14:47

giving them sympathy in years when they don't turn

14:49

huge profits, and when they make losses, nobody

14:52

compensates them when they drill a dry well for

14:54

example, and you know you

14:56

mentioned the people working in the North Sea. It

14:58

is one of the most dangerous, strong jobs that

15:00

you can do. So I do slightly

15:02

get annoyed when people are throwing stones

15:05

at these companies as if they're evil and terrible,

15:07

when they're really not. They're providing goods

15:10

and services which are essential to everyday

15:12

life in which we all benefit.

15:14

Than my living standards would collapse absolutely.

15:17

But also BP and Shell

15:20

only a tiny proportion of their global

15:22

income comes from the UK, so

15:25

really it's harmed. Companies like Harbor

15:27

Energy. Well, most people have never heard of

15:29

Horbor Energy. Harbor Energy making

15:31

profits or losses is not headline news, and

15:33

yet it's the biggest operator in the North Sea.

15:36

It's taken a big

15:38

hit to its finances as a result of the windfall

15:41

tax and as a result is reprofiling

15:43

activities away from the UK. And

15:45

what we're seeing is that across the North Sea

15:48

operators they're are scaling back their activities

15:50

and we're seeing rigs moving out of the area.

15:53

Now, once these rigs go, it'll be really hard

15:55

to get them back. And obviously without rigs you're not

15:57

going to do anything. So it's

15:59

been really damaging and it

16:02

needs to go. And this is politicians need

16:04

to avoid these kinds of knee jerk reactions.

16:07

The windfall tax has not

16:09

achieved what it was intended to achieve.

16:11

All it's done is harm companies that

16:13

most people have never heard of and don't really care about.

16:15

And the belief in the time was that

16:18

it would raise large amounts of

16:20

revenue without affecting production. Well

16:23

was that the view? It must be?

16:24

Well, I think yeah, And now the government

16:26

is trying to sell we'll have these annual licensing rams

16:28

as a way of signaling ongoing commitment to

16:30

the region. But the best way to signal

16:33

that commitment would be to get rid.

16:34

Of the EPL.

16:35

Where are the rigs going West Africa?

16:38

West Africa?

16:39

It is certainly not coming back, are they? No?

16:42

No, There's one form of energy

16:44

that I haven't asked you about, and that is bio

16:46

mass. And one of the

16:49

big conversations I know in the energy world

16:51

is about drags. Is drags good

16:53

or is drags bad? Right? And I think

16:55

you might be on drags bad side. I

16:58

think, well, first have a claim DRAGS

17:00

does.

17:00

So. The Drags used to be a coal fired

17:03

power station, and because everyone

17:05

got very squamish about coal, they decided

17:07

that they would initially co

17:09

fire with wood pellets and then convert

17:12

to using wood pellets completely. And

17:15

wood pellet biomass is considered

17:17

and has this sort of very neutral cabin

17:20

accounting, because the idea is

17:22

that you plant new trees and then those trees

17:24

grow and I absorbed common dioxide

17:26

and that offsets the cobbon dioxide that you're emitting

17:29

by burning the wood. And

17:31

so DRAGS is a huge power station

17:33

and it burns a lot of wood, and

17:35

this wood is being sourced in the US,

17:38

and they like to say it's mostly wastewood, but it

17:40

would be hard to supply drags using just wastewood.

17:44

I'm interrupting you because I've I've

17:46

got their table here. I have a drag

17:48

supporter who has sent it to me. Stormal

17:51

and other wood industry residues nineteen point seven

17:53

percent branches and tops three percent, sinning,

17:56

thirteen point eight percent, low grade round wood

17:58

twenty two percent. That seems

18:01

pretty valid. Well,

18:03

what they do next is they have to

18:05

chop it all up, they have to dry it out,

18:07

and they have to pelletize it. All of those

18:09

steps take energy. Then

18:11

they load it onto ships and those ships

18:13

are fueled with bunker fuel, which is the dirtiest

18:16

bit at the bottom of the crack, and

18:18

then they sail it halfway around the world to Yorkshire

18:21

and then they set fire to it. And

18:23

the emissions from the chimneys at Drax

18:25

when burning wood pellets are higher

18:27

than they were when they were burning coal. So

18:30

not only is this bad for the people of Yorkshire

18:32

because their air quality goes down, it is bad

18:34

for all the people in between Yorkshire and the

18:36

US because of all the emissions from the shipping,

18:38

and it's bad for the people in the US because of all the

18:40

emissions from drying, pelletizing and all the rest

18:42

of it.

18:43

Okay, how about this.

18:44

Honestly, anybody can plant trees so

18:46

you could be residual.

18:48

Fiber depellot plants significantly improved

18:51

the economics of timberland. This has contributed

18:53

greatly to land owners making the eping economic

18:55

decision to shift from let profitable land

18:57

used like carbon nasty cotton in the US

19:00

planting trees for lumber and biomass. Timberlands

19:02

of the save Lee to the US are now growing in size,

19:05

increasing carbon sequestrations and habitats

19:07

for the nice animals.

19:08

But what you're doing is no, because

19:11

they're fast growing variety, So

19:13

you're losing biodiversity by doing that.

19:16

Okay, you're just not going to be convinced on this one.

19:18

No, no, no, There

19:21

are other forms of biomass energy, so I think

19:23

it's always important to be specific that we're talking about

19:25

wood pellet biomass in the context of drags.

19:27

But when you look at the supply chain emissions and

19:30

the fact that the stack emissions are higher than they

19:32

are with coal, then really the best

19:34

thing that dracts could do other than just closing.

19:36

Would we go back to burning coal, and

19:39

yes, you'll have some emissions ship in the coal, but

19:41

you don't have to dry it and pelletize it and

19:44

do all that other stuff.

19:45

Okay, so it would really the best thing for us to do.

19:47

Absolutely the best thing for us to do is

19:49

to forget about the woodpellers, forget about everything,

19:52

go back to coal and just open up our old coal mines

19:54

again, dig up the coal sticking into drags,

19:56

and then you've got a nice, constant

20:00

efficient source of power that just goes

20:02

directly into the grid without any

20:05

of the environmental consequences for other

20:07

countries. So or is that now really

20:09

pushing it?

20:09

I think that's pushing it because I don't think we're

20:11

going to sustain a coal industry with two coal power

20:14

stations, because we've got Drags and Ratcliffe

20:16

and they're both getting quite old.

20:18

So honestly, I would keep I would have them as

20:20

coal because it's cleaner than woodpellers,

20:24

and I wouldn't close them because

20:27

I worry that we're going to run out of generating

20:29

capacity come the end of this decade. So I think

20:31

closing anything that isn't actually broken,

20:34

shouldn't happen, and one

20:36

or two coal power stations isn't going to destroy

20:39

the planet. What's going on

20:41

in China?

20:41

Yes, and they create excellent backup exactly

20:45

exactly. So that's what's going on in China

20:47

being the increasing use of coal exactly. I mean, that's

20:49

increase really interesting

20:52

because their use of renewables is increasing massively,

20:54

but so is their use of every fossil

20:56

fuel known demand because.

20:58

Their energy use is expanding sort of yeah, and it's

21:00

orders of magnitude bigger than what we're doing.

21:02

So one or two coal power stations

21:05

in the UK not even running all

21:07

the time, it's not really moving the

21:09

dial up from a climate perspective.

21:12

But if we have blackouts

21:14

then that would have very serious consequences.

21:16

If we had winter blackouts in the UK, people

21:19

would die, that's

21:22

highly likely. So to

21:24

avoid that at a very bad outcome,

21:27

running a couple of coal power stations doesn't

21:29

seem like a bad trade off.

21:31

Okay, so we leave Rags doing what it does, but we

21:34

probably leave it doing what it does with biomass because

21:36

it's not going back to coal. And as

21:38

you say, if we don't have those backup generators,

21:40

running. We are vulnerable,

21:43

so we need drags and it's biomass. If we're not going

21:45

back to coal, even if you don't strictly streaking improve

21:48

of it and the way it does things, if we didn't

21:50

have it, we've been putting ourselves at risk exactly.

21:52

And I think it's unfortunate because it's received

21:54

so many subsidies to do something

21:56

that's far worse than it was doing previously.

22:00

And I don't criticize Drugs for that. I mean their

22:02

management team has done a bangup job. Really,

22:04

if persuade incentivized exactly,

22:07

they've persuaded governments to pay them lots of money

22:09

to do something even worse than they were doing before and

22:13

really give an obsolete business

22:15

model new legs. So their

22:17

management has done a brilliant

22:20

job. I don't blame them. They're doing

22:22

what they're supposed to do for their shareholders.

22:24

Yeah, it's the government, not just our

22:26

government. You know, the EU is in exactly the

22:28

same boat with the way that it incentivizes

22:31

by a mass.

22:32

Yeah, so our governments have made a real massive the senergy

22:34

business, haven't they incentivizing all the

22:36

wrong things?

22:37

They have.

22:37

But this is not a political comment

22:40

because the mainstream parties are all broadly

22:42

in the same boat on these things. I

22:44

think the Conservatives now are starting to see a route

22:46

to maybe if they soften

22:48

their commitments on net zero, that gives them, you

22:51

know, a slight benefit in the

22:53

polls, given that they're so far behind

22:56

any to do the results of Uxbridge.

22:58

But I mean, this is written into law.

23:00

Well yeah, but laws can be changed quite

23:03

tough, I don't think so. It depends if you

23:05

have a decent sized majority then you

23:07

can do it. And people say, oh,

23:09

well, the net zero target is written into lots is

23:11

definitely going to happen. Well, I completely

23:13

disagree with that as an argument,

23:16

because I think you'll get into the twenty forties,

23:18

be remote from the target, be

23:20

facing an enormous bill, and are

23:23

dropping people's living standards to achieve it,

23:25

and suddenly there will be a growing consensus

23:27

to move or change the target. Okay,

23:31

so it won't happen. It won't happen now, and

23:33

it might not happen in the twenty thirties, but as you approach

23:36

the twenty fifty day, it will happen exactly

23:38

so, and you can't

23:40

stop a future parliament passing different

23:43

laws so a future parliament.

23:45

Just because the law exists today does not mean it

23:47

will exist tomorrow. Do you think that

23:50

this is an off topic question that

23:53

if Richard Sinec were to give one last gift

23:55

to the nation before he's removed from

23:57

office in the next election, it would be

23:59

removed be that zero. Will

24:02

there be a gift you g givers.

24:04

So I don't.

24:04

I think that's possibly too abstract as

24:07

a gift. I think that what he would

24:09

need to do is to phrase it in ways that

24:11

where people could see a benefit

24:13

to them in the short term, because

24:15

that's really what's hurting people right now is the

24:17

high cost of living. So that

24:20

zero people are starting to realize

24:23

that's going to make energy.

24:25

And goods more expensive, you know, just.

24:27

Starting to talk about carb and border

24:29

adjustment mechanisms and things like that. That's

24:31

going to make stuff more expensive. It

24:33

will be inflationary.

24:36

So well, let's let's look at the answer.

24:38

Then we can come back to it to assume act gift,

24:40

because the gift give us around this to

24:42

come back to nuclear which I think you believe is the

24:44

answer for doing to our energy problems. Right

24:46

first, explain going to be why there isn't

24:48

the expense extent which it's feasible inside

24:50

the timeframe that we need.

24:52

So I think nuclear ticks all

24:54

the boxes because, as I said before, it fits

24:56

in perfectly with the way the grid was designed. It's

24:59

not intermitted, and it produces

25:01

huge amounts of energy from a very

25:03

small site. And once

25:05

you've built it for the last decades, you

25:08

know, now you're really looking at sixty years

25:11

operating lifetime for these reactors,

25:13

and they are very safe. So what's

25:16

not to like? The high upfront cost

25:18

and the wist those are the two things not to like, whereas

25:21

the wast is actually very manageable. Volumes

25:23

of waste involved are extremely small.

25:27

The problem we have with waste these at the moment

25:29

is a legacy issue. It's dealing with

25:31

all the stuff at cellar Field from

25:33

back in the day when waste wasn't handled

25:35

properly. But the waste that comes out of power

25:37

stations now, although

25:40

we haven't identified a long term disposal

25:42

site, it's all being stored in

25:45

a perfectly safe way. The volumes are small.

25:47

It's all very manageable.

25:48

Can you see volume small? What do you mean like.

25:50

A coke can's worth a year? All that kind

25:52

of.

25:54

Small, okay,

25:56

But compared and compared with all the other

25:59

toxic waste that we generate from all

26:01

of the other industries that we have going on, it's

26:03

really smart.

26:04

And people forget that.

26:05

They think nuclear as

26:07

being unusually bad, but actually

26:09

other industries both produce more toxic

26:11

waste and are actually far more dangerous. The biggest

26:14

industrial accident ever was Boparl. Nobody

26:17

wants to stop making pesticides as a result

26:20

of.

26:20

That, okay, But how do we get a buy

26:22

in for this in that you know,

26:24

to get some power stations

26:27

up using nuclear reasonably quickly in

26:29

the timepime that is required. Given you already concerned

26:32

about having about us having blackouts towards the end

26:34

of the decade, right well, Steton.

26:35

Number one is don't prematurely close the advanced

26:38

gas called reactors, which on

26:40

the current schedule would all be shut by March

26:42

twenty twenty eight. They could continue

26:44

running into the twenty thirties, and they need to,

26:47

and that requires the Office for Nuclear Regulation

26:50

to soften its approach

26:52

in certain areas where it's really taking much

26:55

too.

26:55

We're really bad at softening regulation

26:58

in the UK, well, really bad at that's so that

27:00

to keep those running requires a

27:02

regulation shift at and to build new

27:04

ones inside the time frame. In

27:06

the next sort of thing, I would personally disband and

27:10

replace it with something else because I

27:12

think it's it's it's got a

27:14

little bit out of control and

27:17

the structures around it, so it sits under

27:19

DEFRA. It's not connected with the

27:21

Department for Energy in any way, so it's

27:25

and how much of a priority is it for DEFRO,

27:27

you know, looking after nuclear safety, I

27:29

think we need to we

27:32

need to do better. So

27:34

step number one is don't close the ADR's

27:37

step number two we need to start

27:39

quickly building new reactors.

27:41

Now. There are various sites around the country,

27:43

Wilvera being the most obvious, where

27:46

there's not just local buy in,

27:48

there's an actual, active local

27:51

desire to have a new reactor

27:53

put on that site. They want

27:55

it, they would they would crawl

27:57

over broken glass to get it. The low

28:00

is known as atomic Kitten because

28:02

she's pushing for getting a new reactor

28:04

at Wilver. This is, you know, it's

28:08

like the perfect storm of everybody wanting

28:10

it in that area, so we

28:13

need you know, it's pushing it an open door.

28:14

Let's let's do it now.

28:17

The most credible route to delivery

28:19

at the moment is with KEPKO, the Korean

28:21

Electric Power Company. They are about

28:23

to open their eighth APR

28:26

fourteen hundred. They've got four open in

28:28

South Korea. There's a fourth one about

28:30

to open in UAE America. They're

28:33

delivering these reactors in eight years, on time

28:35

and on budget. No one else at the moment

28:38

can come close. Neither EDF nor Westinghouse.

28:40

Who are the other competitors in

28:42

the Western world, if you like, are

28:45

anywhere near that?

28:46

Do we order now? We can have them by the early

28:48

thirties correct.

28:50

KEPKO, I think is estimating about a tenure

28:52

delivery for the UK, given sort

28:55

of UK specifics. Now, their

28:57

reactor is not certified in the UK, but

28:59

it is certified in the US, and there's a virgin

29:01

that's been certified by the EU. Now

29:03

the government has said it wants to

29:06

cooperate with trusted country regulators.

29:08

This is a perfect opportunity

29:10

to do that. If this technology is

29:12

good enough for the NRC in the US, it should

29:14

be good enough for US. Like the NRC

29:17

is a perfectly credible regulator. It's not

29:19

some Mickey Mouse outfit. They will you

29:21

know, they have high standards, So

29:23

we shouldn't be reinventing the wheel to get that certified.

29:26

Here, okay, what about

29:28

the and we should pay for it?

29:30

Okay, that's what I was gonna ask. So who's going to pay

29:32

for it? It's so to me that my view

29:34

yep, okay, tell me your you. My view is not tell

29:37

me the.

29:37

Government should at least for the first So

29:39

I think we need to sign a contract with Capcove for maybe five

29:41

reactors and not all

29:44

once, you know, come up with some sensible delivery

29:46

schedule, and at least the first couple need

29:48

to be paid for with public money on the public balance

29:51

sheet.

29:51

Because energy security is as important

29:53

as any other great, yeah.

29:54

So I when we don't outsource funding the military

29:57

or the police to the private sector, and

29:59

that's our physical called security is a nation, so

30:01

we shouldn't necessarily take a different view for energy

30:03

security. But I believe

30:06

security then there, well we'll come,

30:08

but we don't. But we're not in the same boat with food

30:10

security. So I

30:12

believe that one of the challenges at

30:14

the moment with securing private investment

30:17

is there's a concern, well,

30:19

there are two issues. One is kind of easily

30:22

overcome investors have something

30:24

of a blind spot around nuclear that's similar to

30:26

their blind spot about AI. They sort

30:28

of put it in, oh, this is quite complicated and scary

30:30

bucket, and then they're just not doing the normal

30:33

risk analysis.

30:34

So it's sort of like, just work.

30:35

The problem like you would any other problem. Your risk professionals,

30:38

for goodness sake, just do your job. The

30:40

other aspect is a genuine concern over

30:43

regulatory consistency and

30:46

the stability or otherwise of

30:48

the policy and regulatory environment,

30:51

and those are legitimate concerns, and I think

30:53

that the government needs to do more

30:55

to de risk the construction phase.

30:58

So if it just simply put its

31:00

own money down, and of course the government can borrow

31:02

more cheaply than any of the other potential

31:05

investors, so this would also reduce cost of consumers.

31:08

I'm fairly confident that after construction they

31:10

could refinance and probably

31:12

at a profit as well, because these will be long

31:14

term profitable assets. So once

31:16

you've de risked construction, these

31:19

are going to be a very different and more attractive

31:21

investment prospect. And also

31:23

once you've demonstrated the commitment, you started

31:25

rebuilding supply chains, you started building

31:28

up work for skills and the confidence

31:30

on delivery, then actually you probably

31:32

find more investor interest even before

31:35

the operating phase that you might get people

31:37

coming into finance construction.

31:39

As long as the bill costs didn't get out of control as

31:41

they seemed to on everything we try and build.

31:42

Well, no, but Capco's has been keeping

31:44

its costs under control. So we need to just

31:46

bring them in and give them the ability

31:49

to deliver in the UK in the way they've

31:51

delivered in South Korea.

31:52

And ue, what.

31:53

About small modular reactors.

31:55

I mean these we've been building these for years and sticking

31:58

them on submarines, right, so yeah.

31:59

Unfortunately we can't just put the same ones on

32:01

land because well, because they use

32:04

a much more enriched type of fuel, it's

32:06

not actually licensed for use in

32:08

civil applications. So the idea

32:10

with nuclear submarines is they can stay under

32:13

the sea for years on end.

32:15

You know, they resurface because the

32:17

people need to exactly

32:19

and they need feeding and stuff, but

32:21

the you don't need to refuel them.

32:24

That type of fuel can't currently

32:27

be I mean, why it's

32:30

not considered as safe. That's why, I mean there

32:32

are concerns over the safety.

32:36

Well, yeah, but if you're a nuclear submarine

32:39

operator in the Navy,

32:41

then you have other safety concerns. I

32:43

mean, yeah, that's already part of the deal. Okay,

32:45

so we can't just transfer this to land, so that

32:49

at the moment, none of the this

32:51

type of fuel is not it's just not licensed. Now

32:53

they're starting to increase the

32:56

concentrations of fuel allowed in civil

32:58

applications, but it's very much a

33:00

softly softly approach. So

33:04

maybe in some point in the future they would be able to

33:06

do it, but it's not at the moment now.

33:08

I think small modular reactors have

33:10

great potential, but it's they're

33:13

more a twenty mid twenty thirties

33:15

onwards conversation, and we just

33:17

can't afford to wait. The most

33:19

promising ones are a

33:22

couple of boiling water react to technologies

33:25

that are being developed in Canada,

33:29

and if they work, that

33:31

will be very promising.

33:33

But they're essentially a scale down version of

33:35

large scale reactor technology.

33:37

Okay, is

33:40

it possible that all our problems will

33:42

go away once we can mirror solar energy

33:44

from space.

33:47

Hull?

33:48

All our problems could go away. If we invented nuclear

33:50

fusion, all our problems could go away. If we

33:52

could capture unicorn tears and harness

33:54

them trying to end on atmistice

33:57

gather.

34:00

Now we don't me try something else.

34:01

You can come up with an optimistic answer to.

34:04

How confident are you that

34:06

we will get our energy

34:09

makes sorted out before we end up having

34:11

power cuts? The real question being should I buy candles?

34:15

Well, I actually advise people with elderly

34:17

relatives to buy tortures and have them sort

34:19

of secreted around their houses because

34:21

if they had power cuts and you

34:23

know, navigating stairs and stuff,

34:26

it's that's kind of dangerous. So if

34:31

the longer we leave it to act, the narrower

34:33

our choices become. So we're rapidly

34:35

approaching at a stage where the

34:38

government's going to have to hugely increase the procurement

34:40

target for the capacity market and build more gas

34:43

unabated gas fired generation, which

34:45

will be expensive because there's uncertainty

34:47

about how they will operate post twenty

34:49

thres can be reasonably quick, but they can be

34:51

delivered in under two years, so that

34:54

could be done to fill the gap. If

34:57

that isn't done, then you're really

34:59

looking a demand catailment. So

35:02

if you're expecting a blackout

35:04

because of a shortage, and you can see that shortage

35:07

coming, then you have to tell your industrial

35:09

demand to turn itself off so

35:12

you can potentially avoid blackouts that way. Of

35:14

course, you're greatly reducing

35:17

system stability and increasing the risk

35:19

of widespread blackouts when you're doing that, and damaging

35:21

your economy. But it's hugely damaging. It'll

35:24

be politically and economically damaging to

35:26

do that, So we do currently

35:28

have the tools to avoid blackouts. Don't

35:31

close the ADRs, don't close anything

35:33

else unless it's actually broken. And

35:36

look at building new gas because

35:38

if you don't, you know you're running out

35:40

of time. And try and accelerate

35:42

the build of new nuclear so that when

35:44

you do have to close the ADRs in the

35:46

beginning of the next decade, you've got something

35:48

coming on.

35:49

To replace it.

35:50

Yeah, I'm bang handles.

35:51

And then you've got electrification to consider as

35:53

well.

35:54

Yeah.

35:55

Okay, Catherine, thank you so much. I will just ask

35:57

you one last question, which you'd have to

35:59

take stab at, even though not your area, because I

36:01

ask everybody, and I can't let you off. If

36:04

I was going to lock you up somewhere for ten years, somewhere

36:06

nice by the way, and before

36:09

I did that I asked you to make one investment

36:11

and one investment only. And I normally

36:13

say to people they have a choice between bitcoin

36:16

or gold, but

36:18

in okay, I'm going to add on uranium.

36:21

Well, sume bitcoin or gold. I do gold. I

36:23

am between gold and uranium.

36:27

That's interesting. Yeah, I'll probably

36:29

do uranium. Yeah, of course

36:31

if you go for the gold, you can always wear it afterwards,

36:33

you can.

36:33

Yeah, uranium, I.

36:37

Just make something pretty and

36:39

bitcoin you're not convinced by not

36:41

really, no, wonderful.

36:43

That was very kind of you to answer that question. Thank

36:46

you so much for joining us today. That was fascinating.

36:48

Thank you.

36:55

With me now to reflect on what we just heard from Catherine

36:57

porter Is Bloomberg Energy reporter Rachel

36:59

Morra and Rachel, thank you so much for joining

37:01

me today.

37:02

Hugely appreciated.

37:03

That was an interesting conversation,

37:06

and I wanted to start by asking

37:08

you what you thought about Rachel's thoughts

37:10

on net zero. She

37:13

says probably not possible

37:15

by twenty fifty, which seems to be a growing

37:17

concernsuscietally, and she's also not

37:20

convinced it's desirable either. So

37:22

do you from your work, do you think that it's

37:25

possible by twenty to fifty on

37:27

our current projectory.

37:29

I think when we are thinking about it, we're

37:31

thinking about the word net within that and

37:34

how much emphasis is going to be on that net.

37:37

So there's new technologies where you

37:39

can capture carbon from the air and so you

37:41

can remove carbon. So can we be offset that against

37:43

some of the emissions that we haven't been able to

37:46

prevent. So I think within that

37:48

we could probably get close

37:51

by twenty fifty. It's very hard at this point because

37:53

it's so far away. I think we're looking at some

37:55

of the twenty thirty goals, particularly

37:57

in the UK, the clean grid by twenty

38:00

thirty five under the Conservatives or twenty

38:02

thirty under Labor and people are saying

38:04

that that looks very difficult. That's just too soon

38:06

for some of those technologies like

38:08

carbon capture and storage or hydrogen.

38:10

Yeah, okay, So it's really meeting

38:13

it at the moment based on what we can do at the moment. It's

38:15

more about carbon capture than anything else.

38:17

That I think we're at a crossroads

38:19

where we sort of have to see which becomes

38:22

more successful and more widely used, and

38:24

that's on a global basis. Carbon capture or

38:27

hydrogen both, especially if it's green.

38:29

Hydrogen can solve some

38:31

of the problem in the places that are

38:33

difficult to decarbonize, such as industry.

38:35

And then when we moved on to talk about

38:38

desirable this is when it all got pretty

38:40

interesting with Catherine, because she looked

38:42

at it very much through the prism of cost,

38:44

and not just financial cost, but also

38:47

environmental costs that not everyone looks

38:49

at. So we talked a bit about water supply and the massive

38:51

amount of water used in mining for the critical

38:54

minerals that we need for transition, and talked

38:56

about the general environmental

38:58

harms and also social harms that

39:00

that mining might

39:02

might have in the kind of countries where

39:05

lithium, etc. Is And that was quite

39:07

an interesting way to look at it. This is not something you heard about that

39:09

much. That that a this focus

39:11

on financial cost, which is gathering

39:14

speed, right, and b this focus on the

39:16

environmental cost of the minerals.

39:18

What did you think about her take on all that?

39:22

Yeah, I think you're right. A lot of the focus

39:25

tends to be on the kind of sustainability

39:27

from the kind of labor involved

39:29

in some of those minds, and

39:32

the availability of the

39:35

critical minerals needed for making

39:37

batteries, and the water aspect is

39:39

interesting because you know, it seems

39:41

like almost every solution we find has

39:44

some other strain on

39:46

the environment and on the planet. When

39:48

it comes to cost, I think it's quite difficult

39:51

calculation to make, particularly for

39:53

renewable energy. And

39:55

yeah, the conversation was focused very much

39:58

on the lowest cost of consumer and

40:00

there is this idea of the trilemma,

40:03

which is an idea that sort of come back into fashion,

40:06

where you have cost, you

40:08

have security of supply, and you have environment

40:11

and at one time only one of those things can

40:13

be at the apex of the triangle, so at the detriment

40:15

of the other two. So if you put cost at the top,

40:18

then obviously that might mean using

40:20

fossil fuels for longer because it might be cheaper.

40:23

But if you put the environment or sustainability

40:25

at the top, then you know, perhaps one of those

40:27

things it has to give is that we have to pay more.

40:30

And I think what she didn't

40:32

mention is that having huge amounts

40:34

of renewable energy which feeds

40:37

into the grid at a low cost, does lower

40:39

the price of energy for consumers. So

40:42

we do have that bill lowering

40:44

impact of having lots of renewable energy.

40:46

Yes, we have to pay for it. We have to subsidize

40:49

those technologies at the moment, but the cost has come

40:51

down significantly. You know, you kind of are

40:53

weighing up that you pay to build

40:55

it now and it operates for decades into

40:57

the future, giving us a source

40:59

of clean and low cost electricity

41:03

versus just sticking with fossil fuels and not building

41:05

anything new.

41:06

Yeah, but when you say it brings down costs, you

41:08

are talking about the future, right, I mean it's

41:11

more expensive now.

41:12

We have to rebuild.

41:13

We've put up all this infrastructure, and we have to pretty

41:15

much rebuild the grid from scratch

41:17

and make it much much bigger and develop

41:20

it in a very different way to take on many, many,

41:22

many tens of thousands of different sources of energy

41:24

as opposed to the small number of energy

41:27

sources we used to have in terms of big power stations in

41:29

the middle of the country, et cetera. So we have to

41:31

do that, and then we have to pay for the backup

41:33

power, the intermittency, et cetera. So

41:36

in the short term, that doesn't reduce builds,

41:38

and I when we see that do not build. It doesn't reduce bills.

41:40

But the hope is that it does over the medium

41:43

to longer term. Right, well,

41:45

it does.

41:46

You can see it on your bills. If you have one

41:49

of the kind of flexible or agile tariffs

41:51

and it's a super windy day, then

41:53

you can see that you get exposure to

41:56

a price that is much much lower than usual. So

41:58

you can not everybody has that. I mean, it

42:00

makes more sense if you have something like an electric vehicle,

42:03

but it is possible for the consumer to get exposed

42:05

to that decrease in price when renewables

42:08

are plentiful. I think what you're

42:10

describing is the shift from

42:12

this big centralized system where

42:14

we have big power stations and big centers of demand

42:16

to much more decentralized lots of input

42:19

points along the grid for your heat pump, your

42:21

electric vehicle. And yes, that requires a lot, a

42:23

lot of investment. But on the other hand, the

42:26

power stations we have don't last forever. A lot of them are

42:28

going to close. We have old nuclear plants

42:30

that are going to close, gas plants that will closed they reach

42:32

the end of their life. So whatever

42:34

we would have to build something new, we

42:37

can't just use things that are

42:39

sixty seventy years old, so there

42:42

would be some kind of rebuilding no matter

42:45

what we did. And I think when you look at some

42:47

of the research, you can find that the

42:49

status quo and continuing to use fossil

42:51

fuels that are subject

42:54

to big price swings like the

42:56

war in Ukraine ends up being more expensive

42:58

than investing and receiving

43:01

the benefit of that cheaper, cleaner power.

43:03

Well, it seems like I mean that the

43:07

efficiency and cost base of renewables such

43:09

as solar and wind is always going to cause arguments,

43:11

partly because there's the arguments around land

43:13

used efficiency, etc. But fossil

43:16

fuels, of course are always going to cause arguments.

43:18

But there does seem to be this one thing in the middle that I

43:20

talked about a lot with Catherine, which is nuclear

43:22

power, which seems like an increasingly

43:25

obvious solution. If we just

43:28

really focus on building out nuclear

43:30

you don't really need anything else. You can you

43:33

can stop with relying on China for solar,

43:35

you can stop with worrying about where the minerals come

43:37

from. We can so arguing about whether we have to colonize

43:39

the Moon together the lithium, et cetera. We can

43:41

just get on with it, and that seemed

43:44

the way she described it and the way that I've heard

43:46

other people talk about it incredibly compelling.

43:48

It takes away all the other

43:51

problems. Do you think she's been too simplistic about

43:53

that?

43:54

I think that. I mean, it depends which

43:56

country. But you know, in the UK, for example,

43:59

we are sportive of nuclear. Here the

44:01

government, both on both sides, supports

44:04

a build out of nuclear. The problem is it takes so long.

44:07

The big stations that

44:10

like Hinkley Points see size well

44:12

see that are Hinkley's being built.

44:14

It's taking much longer and costing

44:16

more. And there's been several

44:19

examples throughout Europe. There's one project

44:21

in France that EDF is also working on, Flamonbilee,

44:24

that's been incredibly delayed.

44:27

And so if we if

44:29

we could rely on nuclear to be built quickly

44:32

and not cost a lot more than we were thinking,

44:34

you know, perhaps it could play a bigger role. And I think

44:37

most people sort of think yes

44:40

in part, but maybe it's not the full solution

44:43

for those reasons. And the small modular reactors are

44:45

interesting too, but we haven't got a

44:47

working example of those yet. You know, they're still in

44:49

their infancy. Of development, so

44:52

it's sort of a leap to rely

44:54

on them too much at this point.

44:55

Although she did say, I mean I found at the very end

44:57

of the conversation that that that we just closed on. We

44:59

were to talking about the Korean

45:01

Electrical Power Company KEPCO and how they're

45:04

just opening these things all over

45:06

the place. They've got four open in South

45:08

Korea. They're opening them all over the place, and they're delivering

45:10

them in eight years, on time, on budget

45:12

in a way that nobody else is.

45:15

And I said to it, so if we order them now, we can have

45:17

them by the early thirties and years like, yeah, absolutely,

45:19

and we should do that.

45:20

I think the nuclear sector

45:23

would respond by saying that our kind of

45:25

safety standards are so high

45:27

here. I mean, I know that getting a reactive design approved

45:30

takes a very long time, and

45:33

I've visited the Hinckley site,

45:35

and even though we're not likely to

45:37

have a tsunami, they have to build walls

45:40

that would protect the power plant from

45:42

the impact of a tsunami. You remember Focushinger,

45:44

you talk about it in

45:46

the interview, and there's

45:49

just trying to protect against that. I

45:51

think would mean it would be difficult to loosen

45:53

the regulations and allow nuclear to move faster.

45:56

But often it's actually the construction and the

45:58

people that takes

46:01

a long time, the supply chains. It's not necessarily

46:03

just the regulation.

46:04

Okay, I mean there there

46:06

is or she suggests that there's a case for

46:09

not being quite so

46:12

so safety conscious.

46:14

Obviously very safety conscious, but she does

46:16

suggest that we go a little ott with us

46:18

in that. I mean, for example, for Coushuma

46:20

that was not actually a nuclear accident. There

46:23

was a tsunami, but it didn't cause

46:26

any any deaths from the nuclear

46:28

station itself, just from you

46:30

know, the kind of physical damage of a tsunami.

46:33

Yeah, I think it's just such a high risk.

46:35

And I'm sure you remember from some

46:38

of the worst points

46:40

in the war in Ukraine that

46:42

there were worries about a nuclear plant there. And if

46:45

you know, if there's an attack on a nuclear plant and the

46:47

wind blows towards Europe, you know, we could

46:50

all be impacted too, and it's

46:52

impossible to contain and stop, and so it

46:54

just you know, policy makers just cannot

46:57

risk that, even if it's unlikely.

47:00

Still, the Fakashima incident impacted

47:03

how you build nuclear all over the world.

47:06

Regardless of the likelihood of it actually

47:08

happening.

47:09

Okay, I'm getting that you're just not quite as keen

47:11

as as Catherine was

47:14

and don't see it just quite sort of straightforward

47:16

way out of the whole thing.

47:18

I think it's part of the solution, but I think a huge

47:22

amount of capacity would just be very

47:24

difficult to do.

47:26

Okay, thank you, Thank you very

47:28

much, thanks

47:32

for listening to this week's Maren Talks Money. We'll be back

47:34

next week. In the meantime, if you like us show, rate,

47:36

review, and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts,

47:38

and we finally have our show emails, so send

47:40

along your ideas, your questions, to your comments, and of

47:43

course your criticisms to Merin Money

47:45

at Bloomberg dot net. This episode was

47:47

hosted by me Maren sumset Web. It was produced

47:49

by Someasadi, additional editing by Blake

47:51

Maples. Special thanks to Katherine Porter

47:53

and of course to Rachel Morrison.