 So ladies and gentlemen, we will start our event on Nuclear and renewables to partner to achieve net zero. So it's my pleasure to invite the speakers To the stage dr. Katie Huff Assistant secretary from for nuclear energy at the US Department of Energy Then Diane Cameron head of the division of nuclear technology development and economics at the OECD and EA then She'll join us momentarily did you are young from EDF in charge of climate change? impact and Kirsty Gogan managing partner of terror praxis So we've heard this week from in a number of events From IEA doctor Birol for example that wind and solar will likely Represent the bulk of the decarbonization efforts in the next three decades But at the same time that we will need all options to get to net zero And nuclear is one of the options and it's making a come come back not only for climate reasons, but also for energy security Concerns and the last night here at the COP 27 an inside UN side event Entitled into play of low carbon technologies for resilient net zero energy systems We heard from the DGs of IEA Unido and the executive secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Europe that we will also likely need wind solar nuclear and CCS To achieve our net zero Objectives so really there's no opposition between nuclear and renewables But so we want to dig deeper in today's event and understand how Nuclear and renewables work together complement each other And perhaps challenges related to the integration of those two technologies and All this discussion is taking place in the context of of the of the COP so with the Concerns about mitigation about resilience against climate change and extreme weather events concerns about having affordable energy leaving no one behind and secure security of energy supply not only from the point of view of fuel but also of Critical minerals that are essential for the transition and Of course energy low carbon energy to support economic development and emerging economies so I will ask each of the speaker to Let us share their thoughts and let us know what they are thinking about When we're talking about nuclear renewables and then and then we will have a conversation I have a couple of questions. So Katie, would you like to stop please? Sure, thank you, and you know, I think a lot of you have heard from me already So I'll keep my comments fairly brief right my role in the United States government is to oversee the office of nuclear energy And so we think a lot about how nuclear energy fits in our broader Climate strategy our energy strategy for the United States And I think the critical component here is that to get to our Extremely aggressive climate carbon reduction goals you know zero carbon electricity by 2035 which is like tomorrow and net zero Economy by 2050 we'll have to have renewables backing up wind and solar and Sorry, we're gonna have to have nuclear backing up renewables where we currently have a lot of natural gas There's only so much carbon capture and sequestration that can be achieved Some decarbonization is totally impossible with without some level of heat direct heat and primary source of heat in the United States Of course, we've just passed this historic Climate bill the inflation reduction act and before that the bipartisan infrastructure law Both of them recognize that renewables and nuclear need to work together. There's some really good examples of this where Yeah, I know it's not us, but it's distracting so I think that There are a few examples of this in those bills where like there's a technology agnostic tax credit that applies to all clean Energies and nuclear plants can take part in that There is nuclear as part of our broader hydrogen initiative But most importantly, I think the important part here is that nuclear power pres provides a resilience that we can only get from You know nuclear or fossil fuels and renewables alone particularly those that rely on the weather Will heavily rely on nuclear power as backup in order to get to that zero carbon that last 20% of the electric grid is really hard and lots of process heat applications and You know decarbonization of sectors like The construction of the making of concrete for example cement requires Chemically it releases carbon, right? How are you gonna capture and sequester that carbon for a net zero economy? You need to power a carbon capture and sequestration unit that takes a clean energy system That's constantly running at the pace of that cement plant. It can't be some variable wind generation So, you know nuclear will fit into those niche Places, so anyway, you've heard from me a lot this week, so I'll turn it over to Diane Good morning. Good afternoon everyone. It's my pleasure to be here and thank you so much to the IAEA for an invitation Excuse me to speak about this really important topic how nuclear and renewables can partner together to achieve net zero It's a topic that we think a lot about a lot at the nuclear energy agency where I have the pleasure to Head the division for nuclear technology development and economics We think about how these technologies how nuclear energy technologies fit within a larger context So I have a short slide deck and next slide, please and The context for the presentation is this This challenge of the energy systems of the future How do we integrate together at a systems level all of the pieces of the puzzle that we know have a role to play? We know that there will be a role for wind and solar there will be a role for carbon capture and sequestration But there will also be a role for hydropower and nuclear power and we need to couple and and Hybridize or combine and integrate these different sources of non-emitting heat and power in order to serve a variety of market needs And so that's sort of what this this illustration from Idaho National Labs helps us to start thinking about is that systems level integration So at the nuclear energy agency next slide, please when we think about this One of the things that concerns us is at that systems level. What do the costs look like? How do we understand the costs of the integration of these different sources of of power and heat? So I'm going to set out our framework for thinking about systems level costs and the integration of nuclear with renewables You know all within that framework of driving to net zero I'll start with a few gender definitions some general concepts and some conclusions for policymakers and decision makers Next slide, please. So in order to have this conversation. I think it's necessary to define a couple of terms And and what we have here is three levels to our analysis and when we're looking at the economics and the costs of power systems The first level of the analysis is plant level costs the plant level costs are as it in as the name implies These are the costs that are incurred at the level of the plant so this includes The the costs of construction the cost of pouring concrete the costs of acquiring your fuel and the cost of paying your Your labor force for example now Often we hear economists and energy policy makers talk about the levelized cost of electricity when they say LCOE or levelized costs. They're talking about plant level costs and those are really important costs But they're not a complete picture We have to we have to take a step back up to look at the grid level costs to paint a more complete picture So the next level of our analysis is grid level costs these are costs that are incurred again as the name implies at the level of the grid and let there be no doubt and Variable sources of power generation impose higher grid level costs on the overall system This includes maintaining spinning reserves and the ability to compensate for variability and uncertainty and intermittency Then the last level of analysis if we really want to understand the full costs of providing electricity to a system We have to think about the social and environmental costs And at this level at the level of social and environmental full costs We include in our analysis things like positive and next and negative externalities so if there is no price on carbon this is the level at which we start to think about What is the the the the implications or the overall societal costs of carbon pollution and so it really you know There's these three levels of analysis that are necessary turning to the next slide, please So I mentioned plant level costs when we add plant level costs with grid level costs that's what we define to be systems level costs at the NEA and grid level costs that includes connection transmission and distribution in order to get the power from where it's produced to where it needs to be consumed and balancing costs to Compensate for uncertainty and profile costs to compensate for variability and intermittency So this is these are the grid level costs that allow us to smooth out Variable generation to meet the actual demand patterns Because the wind doesn't always blow the Sun doesn't always shine and it certainly doesn't always happen at the moment when society needs to consume power Turning to the next slide, please On this slide. I'm showing the results of an IEA NEA Study where we looked at over 20 of our member countries combined And we did an analysis here at the plant level of the costs of generation from different power sources And we found that long-term operation of nuclear power So that is the maintenance and refurbishment of existing nuclear assets to be able to Operate them in the long term is Hands-down the lowest cost option for low carbon and in fact for any source of power generation we also find that new nuclear and Under some circumstances SMRs the wave of new innovation small modular reactors Can be a very competitive source of power and especially in some markets Turning to the next slide, please What we find though is that there's a range right there's you saw the bars and whiskers There's sort of a range of anticipated costs and that is driven primarily by the regional endowments So in some jurisdictions that are very blessed with a lot of hydro power or they're blessed with a lot of wind and Those sources of power are more economic in other contexts where hydro is not available and the costs Become more competitive so for for for nuclear for example So nuclear competes very well in many but not all markets and what it's driven by is in part the The regional endowments, but we also now when we look beyond plant level to the grid level. We see that The profile costs if you remember from the definition Those are the costs of compensating for uncertainty and intermittency really drive the system level costs and my next slide is really sort of the the the most important and And quite profound Conclusion from from the work that we've done at the NEA on system costs modeling What what I'm showing here is a three-dimensional graph And and I want to just take a minute to walk you through it because I think it is quite quite profound and has Significant policy implications. So the vertical axis is system costs on the horizontal axis heading off to the right is The share of variable renewables in the mix So from a very low share of variable renewables at the front edge to I think we go up to about 80 85 percent variable renewables at that back edge The axis that goes off to the left. That's the carbon constraint at the green line You can see we're cutting the system at a carbon constraint of about 50 grams per kilowatt hour and that Corresponds in many jurisdictions roughly to their 2030 targets and at the red line at the back We're going to net zero So if you impose a carbon constraint of net zero on the system, you end up at that red line at the back Which is for many countries and many jurisdictions the 2050 target So now let's talk about the shape of the graph you can see that at some point in the system as You introduce more and more variable renewables into the system you start to make the system costs rise And they start to rise dramatically So why is that the reason is because you have to compensate for the variability you have to backstop those variable renewables with either Storage batteries or some firm baseload like hydro electricity or nuclear power Now if you're if you're focused on 2030 and you see that green line where there is a societal preference for variable renewables There is a price premium to be paid if you want to get your system to a very high share variable renewables And in some social contexts that price premium might be acceptable There might be a sufficient preference in the citizenry that they want to pay that price premium But take a look at what happens as we drive the carbon constraint from the 2030 targets to net zero the differential but the The extent of that surplus the system costs driven by those profile costs to compensate for Variabilities become even more extreme and that's what we call we call it the system costs cliff So if you were at 75 percent variable renewables, you've set yourself on a path to success for 2030 But probably the costs of maintaining 75 percent variable renewables on your grid for that 2050 zero carbon constraint Become prohibitive. So why do the system costs become more and more expensive as you go to zero? The reason for that is because the options for backstopping variable renewables become increasingly scarce increasingly complicated increasingly expensive as you have to take natural gas off the system and you Have limited battery storage and you really need to be deploying other options for backstopping so The shape of this curve we think is universal the fact that it is Exponential growth in the one dimension as carbon goes to zero and the fact that it's an s-shaped graph Or f-shaped curve in the other direction as you go as you increase the share of variable renewables Now the height of that system costs grid depends on regional endowments So we do country specific studies Because the height of this graph and exactly where the point of inflection and where the the hockey stick curve Occurs varies by country by country, but the shape of it is a universal truth variable renewables impose higher system costs my last slide are the conclusions and Systems level thinking is necessary Because if you are only looking at plant level costs, you're looking at incomplete information incomplete information leads to bad decisions The grid level costs imposed by variable sources of power grow increasingly expensive as the share of variable renewables rise and The unique characteristics resource endowments and policy conditions of the electricity system in a specific country or jurisdiction Is what is going to determine the extent of those system costs? And so I thank you for the opportunity to to provide this Overview because it really goes to how we at the nuclear energy agency think about what are the challenges and in this case The cost implications of integrating nuclear with variable renewables. Thank you. Thank you, Diane and Now we'll have a I would say another View of this analysis, but from the point of view of France Didier you're you're from EDF and you're you're going to talk about Recent scenario studies that were done in France. Exactly right. Thank you, Ari for inviting me And thank you also for the introduction because I guess we need a really data to take the right decisions and based on facts And not on opinions and that's a really really important So, thank you. So it is based on a scenario that were made by RTE actually The entity responsible of the grid in France that is a subsidiary hundred percent of EDF And it was made at the request of the government and it's Highlights some scenarios with hundred percent renewables up to a large mix with with nuclear Hope it's not gonna work Sorry, okay, it's working this one. Okay Okay, so first as you see we are already a largely decarbonized Facility utility With more than 90% of our production energy production that is based on low carbon either nuclear or renewables and of course we have some complement with gas and we are quite phase out from few from fuel and coal Unfortunately, we had to restart a cold a cold plant this year due to the crisis So this study was made of course before the crisis that we face right now So the main message It's going too fast I'm in trouble I'm going too fast obviously Okay, good So maybe we shall go to as now the next one next one next next one Okay, so one of the basics of this is that actually That there isn't why there is no competition between the energies because currently the current Consumption is around 1600 teratum and only 25% of it is electricity and even if you Lower by 40% of in our consumption by 2050 You need to increase Dramatically the level of electricity production to phase out for soon So the main message right now is that even if you really gain a lot of a sufficiency and efficiency in terms of consumption you need to increase dramatically your Electrification in order I mean to achieve for seal fuel out So there is no competition between energy because we cannot achieve currently With our mix what is necessary to achieve net zero by 2050? So whatever it's nuclear or whatever it's renewable. So clearly we need both in order. I mean to face this challenge That's the reason why RT provided some scenarios either in terms of consumption In terms of electricity so it goes it's ranging between the 550 terawatt to 750 terawatt depends on of the level of sufficiency and efficiency or a full reindustrialization process of a France where we get back some industry in France in order to to get more products produced in France and Also, maybe next slide Okay, and some also Scenarios in terms of generation mix whatever it's largely renewables It's includes a large part also of nuclear mix including existing central existing nuclear power plants or new built including also SMR So you see that the recent discussion that we have with the government led necessarily with a mix with a Maximum of a new built and to extension of our nuclear power plant But still it's something that it's good because even the data's are not exactly in line right now with the current crisis We see the order magnitude is quite is quite important to to have in mind and we see clearly That's currently We need to sink in team in terms of tower tower and not in terms of gigawatts Because a lot of people are talking about gigawatts installed and they make a confusion between what we need to produce It's tower tower and what we need to install is gigawatts And you see on this graph that actually if you move to new only new Renewables you need to install twice time Than if you keep into the business Nuclear essentially due to the load factor So maybe you can move to the next slide So actually it's quite the same as you presented But from the French perspective I would say in terms of cost Yeah, and you see that actually all the scenarios the three scenarios with most renewables on the left and including Nuclear on the right and you see clearly that more you include the renewables more the cost is Essentially due to the fact that you need to include in your business flexibility for the grid it's essentially what you mentioned The cost is higher if you have a large part of renewable in the business And you need to address it because actually when the wind is not blowing or the Sun is not shining in this case You need to back it up. And if it's not by fossil you need to back it up by batteries Hydrogen production or whatever and of course it increases a lot of cost Conversely if you have a lot of nuclear in the business The flexibility is less and the load base is insured by nuclear and it can back it up Renewables that's a reason why we are talking about the partnership between renewables and And and nuclear of course if you want to achieve this increase massive increase of electricity production Difficult with only nuclear because nuclear takes time. I mean to be built We should have taken the decision maybe 20 years ago. It's not the case. So clearly we need to live with our Existing fleet and with new bills But it will take time to build some and we need to increase our renewables in order I mean to meet the targets and in this case nuclear will back it up in terms of trade sufficiency So it's clearly the need to go to the next slide and you have exactly the same thing for carbon footprint It's not my fault Carbon footprint you have exactly the same issue actually when you go to renewables When you go to renewables the carbon footprint it's higher And the essentially to the life cycle essentially to the life cycle we have made Analysis in France on the life cycle of a nuclear power plant and we found that actually We we spent around four grams per kilowatt. It's very low Essentially because in France also part of the process is fed by low-carbon energy. So it's it's really a virtue cycle But clearly if you take into account the full cycle of life Sometimes it's difficult. I mean to to compete with nuclear. So nuclear is clearly a good option also for food for carbon footprint and It's all so good in terms of material consumption Because when you take into account, I mean the matter that is needed for windmill or whatever clearly It's not competing with nuclear with very low consumption in terms of Materials and it's also in terms of land use We are facing right now some difficulties to have land use because people they don't want to artificialized So clearly the mix between nuclear and renewables. It's absolutely mandatory First because we cannot afford I mean to completely met meet all the requirements of electrification with only one type of energy and Second because nuclear really bring into the game a real net advantage in terms of a low-carbon footprint and actually Cost especially for the flexibility for the green Thank you. Thank you. Did you so Kirsty when When we talk about nuclear and renewables, what does it what does it mean for you? What are your thoughts for this discussion? Thank you, Henry And thank you for inviting me to contribute. My name is Kirsty Gogan I'm the co-founder of Terra praxis, which is a non-profit organization working on developing really scalable Climate solutions particularly targeting parts of the economy that actually can't easily be Electrified or decarbonized by wind and solar because of course the thing about nuclear energy is that it produces not only potentially very low-cost power But also heat and the technologies that are being demonstrated and commercialized and will be coming to market in the late 2020s Will produce even high-temperature heat? So let's look at how these technologies could be working in partnership with with renewables Oh, but one other thing to say which is that you know, we absolutely have to you know Completely decarbonize the electricity grid and then expand it to enable electrification But we also have to decarbonize other parts of the economy including transport heavy transport like shipping and aviation As well as industry and other heat applications so There's four ways that I wanted to tell you about today in which nuclear energy can can Compliment renewables in the system. So firstly, of course flexible generation in the electricity grid This is a very straightforward one Of course, we know that nuclear power plants today can already operate flexibly But it's not super economic for them to do so because they'd much rather run all the time, but if you couple Nuclear power plants or small modular reactors with thermal energy storage Then you can actually have the nuclear plant running at its 90% or more capacity factor Charging the battery, which is the thermal energy storage and then dispatching to the grid when wind and solar aren't generating electricity Now if you do have a grid made up of Low-carbon sources like wind and solar and nuclear energy. There's a risk You're going to have low power prices all the time because they're very low operating costs. So we do need to consider Very careful market design to enable low-carbon technologies to be built contracts for difference regulatory acid-based models to support the investment required in these capital intensive investments Or and indeed a capacity market which we found can really make a huge difference to investments in Nuclear, so that's flexible generation in the grid. I've got three more one is co-generation of hydrogen heat and power So, you know in this case you can have a nuclear power plant, which could actually be a conventional light water gigawatt scale Power plant or it could be one of the newer technologies small modular reactors or advanced reactors coming to market links up to The electricity grid but also with the potential to generate hydrogen or supply heat directly to industrial users or other heat users The size well be a plant that's being planned in the UK right now is incorporating You know these options to enable, you know a really broad value proposition for local and energy users as well as to the larger grid so that's co-generation of heat and power and hydrogen and The next is dedicated hydrogen production now in this case you're really transforming the traditional Electricity-led business model for nuclear energy because rather than being constrained by the size of the electricity grid Access to long-term power purchase agreements Grid connections if you're making hydrogen-based synthetic fuels Which are commodities that you can store and transport and export to global markets then you can really locate your Facility where it's convenient for you And you can also expand the size of the facility dramatically. So we have a An example of this called the hydrogen synthetic fuels gigafactory, which is sized to be like a refinery scale a Production facility with a fully integrated manufacturing installation and production facilities all co-located which enables Very large production 20 gigawatts thermal in this case producing 2 million tons of hydrogen per year at a dollar a kilogram The scale of the of the manufacturing facility Enables those very low costs and then the last one that I want to mention is the opportunity to apply the Small modular reactors for the application of heat to replace the coal boilers at existing coal plants now coal represents almost a third of our global carbon emissions And there's two terawatts of coal Operating today globally So if we could replace those coal boilers with small modular reactors Using thermal energy storage to match the steam and heat requirements at those existing coal plants Then you could actually see a very low cost very scalable very repeatable Opportunity to essentially repower those coal plants and continue using the existing transmission and infrastructure that's there as well As of course helping to protect those jobs So that my final remark on re and then I'll start by promise is that none of these Applications are being properly represented in energy systems modeling But actually when we do start to represent achievable costs and these applications at scale in energy systems modeling It has a transformative effect on our prospects for achieving net zero in a timely and affordable way So that was that would be my my last call to action. Thank you. Thank you, Kirsty And and that actually gives us the segue to the to the questions because Right now on the sort of policy-making Front we were not hearing Very much the arguments that you've you've each Put forward so I'll start with the with the dr. Huff So, you know the nuclear community has been saying for I would say Quite a few times a few years now that nuclear is the right partner with renewables can help with integration Into low-carbon energy systems yet the renewable community or the renewable sector is not necessarily very receptive To those arguments. So why is that? Why are we not maybe are we not communicating well? And what do you think needs to be done to to address this? Better representation So All right Thanks for this I think it's really important because I think if you asked this question 10 years ago We would say oh well actually, you know the renew the nuclear community has occasionally made enemies of the renewables community by saying oh Well, you know that we're better than These variable sources in x number of ways and you know nuclear could do it all better And I don't think that helped and I think we've learned that lesson and now we really are in a place where the nuclear community is communicating well But how do we really sort of? How do we deal with the other pieces right the broader renewable community that you see around cop You know is very open-minded to solutions today I think there is a recognition of the existential threat of climate change among this community They're like the potential for you know fossil fuels to continue to execute Ecoterrorism basically and I think engaging on those topics where we agree is a critical component of becoming part of a single team It sounds all very sort of motherhood and apple pie But I fully expect that if each one of us left this pavilion occasionally and went out to You know discuss with the World Bank what you know what what is your stance on nuclear power? You know finance right now and what would change it and then close our mouths and listen a little bit We might get somewhere with some of these organizations because one most people Would rather fail than change and so you do need to hear From people but this community this renewables community and clean energy community would not rather fail than change No one here in this pavilion wants to fail right and I think we can start there Another component of this is actually just engaging on policies where working together We will beat the enemy right and the enemy is carbon emissions Right or actually quite a lot of emissions and the destruction of our oceans Working together. We now have a carbon Tax credit that's technology neutral in the United States at $25 a megawatt hour and actually you know to your point We have this sort of we have an estimate of what the social cost of those system costs would be and it's $25 a megawatt hour right your graph takes it all the way up to a hundred a hundred and fifty Dollars a megawatt hour for this high penetration of renewables. We're not gonna get there with the social costs You know our biggest attempt at this is it's $25. That's what they that's what America is willing to pay for like a high You know introduction of low-carbon sources So I mean to get to this, you know, we must address People's concerns where they are right We need to Address the sort of general public's dread fear of accidents Not just with facts and increased information It is certainly the case that incomplete information leads to bad decisions But it is also the case that there are real reasons for the fear and concern that people have and We need to disambiguate Nuclear powers relationship to nuclear weapons, you know, I think the newer generation is less impacted by this conflation, but conflating the Dangerous dread of nuclear weapons and the history of nuclear weapons production with the current nuclear power industry Has damaged the sort of the view that most humans have of nuclear power I think the younger generation doesn't have this as much as say my parents generation does But it's worth addressing that these are distinct things much like the combustion engine is not a what like it's not a gun They use the same technology basically a piston and an explosion, right? I think we really need to address some of these things and I think in particular, you know It is important for nuclear people to find their way into other conversations We should go and wander these pavilions and have a few conversations and listen And I think we'll come back with better ideas. I think we'll come back with partners and friends I think it's less scary out there than you think it is And I really I would really encourage us to find ways to inject ourselves into other Conversations with like-minded individuals seeking a solution of climate change like everyone. We're doing this right here today Thank you doc. Thank you doctor. I have so we're definitely in the right place But we need to to to go around the pavilions a little more, but I just want to ask you another question Did you I am from EDF reported on this grid grid study? Performed in France and we have seen in in recent month grid operators doing a reliability studies. That's the case in Germany where there that was influential in Persponing let's say the phase out but also in California. There's been a grid reliability study about That played an important role on on Diablo Canyon. Can you say a few words about the role of grid operators? They are the ones that are going to make our low-carbon grid systems work Yeah, that's right Okay So there's um There's a serious concern from you know the average American that when they turn the lights on it will not turn on Right because we've now seen fires and extreme weather events impact our grid California who has historically been like, you know looking toward a future with pure 100% Renewables is now very cognizant of the need for Diablo Canyon to remain running so that their grid does not effectively collapse In particular in the event of a broader, you know fire like season challenge and These sorts of extreme weather events grid reliability in the United States is a public health Concern it is true for the whole world that access to energy is critical It is particularly true in infrastructure like we have in the United States where everything relies on access to energy and that humans have really gotten used to having you know on demand access to electricity This helps with public perception and public awareness I think the need for grid reliability combined with the need for clean electricity electricity Means that we do have to find alternatives for fossil fuels that back up our renewable variable energy sources And I think nuclear is the one and I think approached in this way You know policymakers and decision makers utility operators, you know all sort of can recognize the importance that nuclear can play as this backbone grid reliability studies are very sobering in the United States We really do have an incredible speed of increase in the production of variable renewable energy that is not Being met with the like right amount of clean back up on demand firm power And the firming nature of nuclear power certainly is valuable To those folks and I think there's valuable to folks who invest in infrastructure in general You know and I think there is an opportunity for us to sort of Communicate that Better to the American public, but I think this is one of the key reasons why the nuclear power provisions in the inflation reduction act And in the bipartisan infrastructure law were incredibly bipartisan is that you know thankfully our you know elected Representatives and our administration are actually quite aware in the United States of the sort of national security and public health implications of a reliable grid Thank you very much Diane you you highlighted the shortcomings of only talking about levelized cost of electricity and you stress the importance of taking the system cost approach But we know the the LCOE Way of thinking is really well well Established and last night actually in the UN side event on on the interplay of low-carbon technologies There was a question to one of one of the Speakers about the cost of nuclear is is much higher than the cost of Wind and solar. So why are you supporting? The use of nuclear power. So how do we how we do do we communicate this of system approach in a way that policy makers will Understand and and and act accordingly. I think that's the challenge right and LCOE levelized cost of electricity that plant level metric is widely used and it's widely used because it's easy to understand and it's easy to calculate and the challenge that we face is that it's incomplete information and systems level costs They are more challenging to calculate because they vary by system They vary country to country even within a country. They vary region to region or province to province state to state And they depend on local conditions. They it's not So it is more difficult to calculate But I think what we see and this ties to your first question To dr. Huff is that the system operators and the power utilities who are responsible for the system level grid They understand this and and so I think it's it's a question of energy policy experts Analysts in governments, but also international organizations working with those utilities and system operators to try to communicate this concept and to make sure that the modeling is complete and and the modeling I shows the the the full system cost for system and I And I think maybe I would add to this that and we also need to measure what matters because we manage what we measure and Electricity market design needs to value What matters most to society and to policymakers and so increasingly that means putting a price on Carbon because we we need to value The emissions free feature of certain power generating options, but beyond a price on carbon We need to value reliability Availability flexibility dispatch ability we need to value in the market design those Attributes that will create the energy security That the society and the citizen re-expect Thank you. Thank you. Did you I'm going to ask you a Seminar question because your your presentation of the the RT study highlighted the the the role of this and the Contribution of the additional flexibility That the different mixes have on the on the overall cost so how can we? get policymakers to and the grid operators to come together on on a green to the importance of Of the these flexibility requirements and and their cost implications Well, I guess it's a difficult question I mean how to convince politics and so on and that's the reason why it's absolutely mandatory to work some data and Fact-based solutions and not something that is based on our opinions But clearly this this study that was made by RT at the request of the governor already Gave some results because the current position of the government is to move forward and a new built program of 14 or EPR that it's a maximum that is currently in the scenario. So already people are convinced But we need also to make sure that this kind of decision will not be turned Turn around in the future. So it's necessary to go to a debate also with a lot of People in terms of the public acceptance in order that we can freeze this kind of policy based on Data's and not Opinions to have a complete debate and then to freeze this solution for a long term because Unfortunately, this capital investment is so intensive for nuclear. We cannot shift Two years ago. We were supposed to meet to close a 12 Reactors and right now we are supposed to extend the life of our current reactors and to build fortune a new ones Obviously, it's a little bit Difficult so and and clearly we need to stabilize that and of course to include the greed The grid flexibility into the cost needs to be made based on financial analysis And as I mentioned, we need to make a revolution people needs to not to think in terms of gigawatt installed But gigawatt hour what we produce and what is necessary for the demand to to respond to the demand And we need to have a global access a global impact access and then also to include the carbon footprint If you don't do so you take only part of it and then in this case the result is quite fake. I would say Thank you because the I think in your First statement you you highlighted all the Complementary benefits of nuclear power advanced nuclear power you mentioned cogeneration you mentioned hydrogen But we know that the rate of deployment of nuclear is much slower Than the rate of deploying wind and solar So is there anything that can be learned for the nuclear sector by looking at how the renewable sector has developed Thanks, hon. Rhee. Yeah, it's so Couple of things firstly, I think until very recently, I think really prompted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine there has been a Sort of a hidden Assumption inside almost every single country's so-called net zero plan, which was a very strong dependence on gas and I think now in light of the energy security and affordability Concerns that have been raised recently very strongly of course in Europe But I think recognized around the world That we really need to transition away from a dependence on imported gas for our decarbonization affordability and energy security goals and that has generated a huge demand for new nuclear energy and The big challenge for the industry to get back to your question, hon. Rhee is how can we deliver fast enough and at the scale That's needed to meet that demand Now although actually Nuclear plants can take a long time to build as we've seen recently in the Europe and in the United States Even alcohol Oto for example, which I apologize for my pronunciation in the Finnish plant Which took 16 years to build Still is in like the top top set of fastest Deployments of zero carbon energy In a 15-year period per capita because even though it took a long time to build by the time it was built It actually represents a really large fraction of Finnish electricity So, you know which even though solar and wind projects are fast to build They're small in other words and you'd have to build a thousand of them to kind of start to match the sort of output So you get from a large gigawatt scale conventional nuclear plant However, we have to move away from the traditional Project-based construction model because it is too slow and it will not get us It will not enable us to respond to the global energy crisis. It will not enable us to decarbonize fast enough So moving from project-based construction into high productivity manufacturing based environments By which I mean a factory-based construction of Products which are very standardized and therefore should be much easier and faster to license and Then to deliver designed for manufacture and assembly on site Or indeed shipyards are high productivity Manufacturing environments that already make gigantic very complex high performance highly regulated machines With astonishingly short schedules enabled by parallelization and automation and you know modern methods of manufacturing That can achieve much faster costs than a sequential traditional build so We will need to take that very seriously we'll need to bring the regulators with us We'll need to bring finance in to enable this to be done We should find it easier to finance these kind of projects because a lot of the risk associated with you know the long duration of construction of a bespoke nuclear plant will be eliminated through this standardization product-based approach Okay, thank you very much We're coming to the end of this event So I'd like each of you to maybe make a one-minute Statement or the message you would like to share But because he says you have the microphone you can start and then we'll Move towards towards Dr. Hub. Well, I have to say that at this cop I've never seen such a large presence of nuclear energy And I think that's a recognition of the fact that we're not making enough progress on our carbon emissions reduction And that we need to diversify the options available to us And that's combined with a recognition that nuclear energy can bring incredible value to the electricity sector As it already is but also to the larger decarbonization challenge And it's it's fantastic to be here on the atoms for climate pavilion. So thank you for inviting me Just clearly all the energies are not competing itself We need to to have massive electrification. I mean to decarbonize and obviously nuclear is really a good asset in this business So to make it to make it carbon-tripped. I think I would close with What I think is very encouraging that that there has been an increase in the seriousness of the conversation About what are the true and real and achievable options in front of us? The climate crisis has been compounded by an energy security crisis and which is a Travesty But what it has done is it has created a seriousness to the conversation and as the the timelines and the Emergencies and the crises become more acute We are forced as a global community to to be very real about what we can achieve Immediately and what that is doing is it's forcing certain aspiration and protect perhaps a bit fantastical Options to fall to the side and one of the things that has happened is an increase in the the seriousness about nuclear energy as In terms of long-term operation of existing fleets and we've seen announcements In countries that have reversed decisions around phase out We saw Diablo cannon in the US even Germany talking about considering lifetime extension and and other fleets in Europe as well and nuclear new build and we have heard very ambitious announcements from From the UK from France from others from Korea We have in small modular reactors and novel technologies generation for technologies for heat and hydrogen We see very big Commitments and steps being taken in the US in Canada and elsewhere. So I think that we're seeing a real She has a real sea change a real build in momentum So there's this tremendous opportunity in front of us as the nuclear sector to step into this role To do what we know we can do and what we must do Towards climate solutions But but there's also a call to action here and We need a paradigm shift in how we deliver projects in the nuclear sector. We need to drive down our costs We need to engage with the public build public trust and so there's a lot of things that we need to do right So it's not just a call to action. It's it's a call to succeed and There's an urgency Yeah, I mean it's all been said but I will certainly say like you know if we leave with nothing else It's that there is a huge amount of work to do. It cannot be done by renewables alone Even if we just stick to our lane and do the things nuclear is the only thing is good for right like replacing Coal plants in a very sort of direct way. We will have more work than we can manage So, you know, I think it's really important to note that as we think about the integration of nuclear and renewables There is so much to do There's enough space for everyone to play and to play together things like hydrogen Really allow us to sort of be more flexible advanced reactors will hear about in the next session I see we've got some of our crown jewel companies here to talk about that And I think those those reactors will be more flexible and they present an opportunity For us to really think ahead about Strategic work on building out new nuclear where it is the best Positioned to succeed and where renewables couldn't do it on their own in that way will be a good team complimentary rather than Competition here is the name of the game and our policies already reflect that in the United States We're lucky to have this these two new bills that came out with historic numbers of dollars across the clean energy sector We've got earth shots in hydrogen earth shots in process heat and the Department of Energy really sees nuclear as part of the envelope And so you know, I really expect that at least in the United States will be running with it full steam So thank you very much. Dr. Herb. Thank you very much to all the speakers this is an excellent conversation and I would say let's let's meet it cop 28 and continue the conversation on nuclear and renewables But perhaps let's meet before cop 28 and continue the conversation. Hopefully with the renewable sector as well As I said, we needed we need to have that engagement Outside outside the nuclear sector. Thank you very much everyone and a big clap for the speakers, please Apologies for the sound and the microphone