 Test, test, test. OK. Are we live? We're live? Yep. Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us here today at the Atoms for Climate Pavilion. My name is Craig Janssen. I'm a climate advisor at the International Atomic Energy Agency. So the Atoms for Climate Pavilion is a platform for energy and the climate community. And it's led by the IAEA. So today, we have a special event. We have a debate, a climate debate, on nuclear energy, climate friend, or phone. So first, just to say that we all agree that climate change is a serious issue and that we're told by the IPCC that we must get the world to net zero by mid-century. That's what the Paris Agreement aims to do. But there's no one way for nations to get there. Each one will choose their own path. And each path will be unique and depend on their country's current energy mix, their energy policies, and their available resources. As we know, there are many energy sources available today. Wind, solar, and hydro are some of the low carbon options providing clean electricity. And there's also nuclear energy, which, as you can see from the graphic on the wall, is currently the second largest source of low carbon electricity in the world today. We've over 32 countries around the world with operating nuclear power plants right now. However, nuclear energy can be a divisive technology in some of the climate change communities. And that's why we're here today. We have two enthusiastic young climate champions with us to discuss the question, nuclear energy, climate friend, or phone. So I'd like to introduce them both. So closest to me, we have Mark Nelson, who will be taking the affirmative position. Mark is a managing director of Radiant Energy Group, a clean energy consultancy. He has a master's degree in nuclear energy from Cambridge University and has campaigned to save the German nuclear plants from closing since 2017. Second, on the far end of the speakers, we have Tobias Paule, who will be taking the opposing position. Tobias is a climate activist from Germany. He's engaged with Fridays for Future and is now part of the NGO Klima Delegation. With his bachelor in environmental engineering, he's now studying bioeconomy at the Technical University of Munich. And for our debate moderator today, we have Brianna Lisowitz, an energy economist at the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the former energy economist of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. So thank you all for joining us here today. Before I hand over to Brianna, I'd just like to go over the event format for today. So first, very shortly, so just have us in your minds, we're about to take a quick vote on the position of the audience. You've all got a card you handed at the start of the event. So I want to ask you two in a moment if you could just raise and show green for friend, climate friend, or red for climate phone. And then we will give each speaker two minutes to give an opening position. And then Brianna will take over and give a round of three questions, which each speaker will have a chance to come back on. And then finally, after those three rounds, each speaker will be given an opportunity to give a closing speech for around two minutes. And then the debate will end, and then we'll open up with a Q&A with the audience. So if everyone just wants to vote now, so green for nuclear energy is a climate friend, or red for nuclear energy a climate phone. So if you just raise the cards up so we can just kind of calibrate the audience. OK, so I would say is largely in their friend camp. OK, thank you very much. And now I'd like to hand over to Brianna. Thanks, Craig. All right, let's just we'll get started right away. As Craig mentioned, each of our debaters will have two minutes to give an opening statement for each of the questions that I'll present. So Craig did a great job of explaining why we're all here in the very first place at COP trying to get to net zero. And there are many paths to get there, right? We've been hearing a lot from everyone about renewables, about different options to get us there. And so if we can go back to the presentation, my first question that I'd like to put on the screen for everyone as well, maybe. Thank you. Should nuclear be considered a low carbon energy source that can contribute to the energy transition? Please, Mark. So one of the things that I've heard around the world is nuclear is not truly low carbon because there's carbon involved in the production. The way this often goes is I might say something like, nuclear zero carbon. And people say, actually, nuclear has carbon. And every part of the process, from the mining to the operation of the nuclear plant. So that raises an interesting question. How low carbon is nuclear? And how does that compare to other well-known low carbon technologies? Well, I'm happy to say that now that many companies and countries are obsessed with lifecycle analyses, we have actual numbers. And obviously, the citation at the moment is, trust me, bro, if you come up to me and ask me after the debate, I will be happy to prefer the evidence. So lifecycle analysis, what does this really mean? It means that you look at every single thing, cradle to grave, from the mine for the uranium, to the processing of the uranium, to the fuel manufacturing, to the operation of the nuclear plant, to the disposal of the waste. And you can count up every step. We are here in the IAEA Pavilion, where it literally is counted up every single gram of radioactive elements in the world, in the countries that are not the sixth on the UN Security Council and a few others. Everybody else has to tabulate. It makes tabulating lifecycle carbon emissions easy. Let me summarize, that the current day, with modern mining and enrichment technologies and the way nuclear plants operate, in already built nuclear plants, the lifecycle carbon emissions are down to three or four grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. We are not currently able to get that low with other famous low carbon technologies like wind and solar. And when solar is installed in countries with very bad solar resources like Germany, the lifecycle carbon of solar zooms upwards anywhere from 10 to 40 or even 50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. So if you have something that is about 10 times cleaner than solar, I'd say that would count for us as low carbon energy. Thank you, I'll stop you there. And now to, can I use this? Tobias, should, oh, should nuclear be considered a low carbon energy source that can contribute to the energy system? Yes, let me introduce, I don't wanna be here actually. There's so many negotiations going on right now. There's so much going on. I thought of like three times cancelling this event because there are really, really, really big things to do right now. We have to do actions, we have to do everything, but we don't need these discussions because these discussions won't help anything in being really climate neutral. Why? There are four reasons. The first one, it's like we have one million years that we have to oversee if we're investing in nuclear. It's one million years. What the hell, what are we doing? What have we, humanity hasn't been there one million years before. We don't know anything about what's happening in one million years. And how arrogant are we that we think that we can oversee nuclear waste and the treatment of nuclear waste in one million years? First thing, second thing, it's, so the costs economically, it's really, really too much. We have like four nuclear, we have like 40 to 19 cent per kilowatt hour if it's new built. We have wind four to eight cent per kilowatt hours and we have sun six to 12 cent per kilowatt hours. That means it's not economically feasible. And third one, it's not secure. We have extreme weather ones. We see it right now in France. We see in France the nuclear power plants had to be shut down because the stream there was, it was too hot, there wasn't enough water and then it has to be shut down. And then coal power plants from Germany had to be turned on to give energy instead of it. And the fourth one, it's not a low carbon technology. It's like four times more than photovoltaic and 12 times more CO2 per kilowatt hours. And that's not a low carbon technology. That's really, really too much for having a climate neutrality in the next years. So that was a lot to unpack there. I'll let you first maybe respond to the last piece if that's okay, that answers the question about low carbon. All right, so the last part of that, we'll probably get to some of those issues you mentioned. Thank you Tobias. We'll get to those in the other questions, but on the final statement when we heard the ratios, I don't know if I wanna put you on the spot and say, no, go on, don't just say 8x, what's the number? Because I've seen some of the weird outlier studies that were produced in order to demonstrate numbers that are frankly not agreed upon by anybody else in the engineering scientific community, not even in Germany. There are academics who work hard to distort the figure. My favorite one is an academic who published a study showing that if you include the carbon cost of nuclear war every 10 years, burning global cities, then it added a bit of carbon to nuclear's footprint. And even then he didn't get up to the numbers you've quoted much lower than that. So I would disagree with your sources and say that it makes no physical sense that those numbers were produced and nuclear is agreed by almost everybody in the world now, official institutions that don't even like nuclear as being between four and 12 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour with 12 on the upper end being new build nuclear and four being the existing, continuing operating nuclear energy. So I must disagree with your sources there, Tobias. And if you can tell us what the numbers were, where the sources, I guess we could do battle. And the handing back to Tobias for two minutes of response. I have run it down here. So we have brown coal, it's like 1,000, 1,030. Stone coal, it's 860. Gas, it's 440. Nuclear, it's 100, around 15. Photovoltaic is 33. Onshore, it's nine. Offshore is seven. And that's CO2 per kilowatt hours and water power is a little less. So that's the numbers that it's, I can send you the sources afterwards. These are reliable numbers and I know you can somehow little edge on some points. And if you have a life cycle analysis and put in some other aspects, you would have some other regions where it comes from. Then of course, but if you, there are these studies and these are the numbers and these are important numbers to know. It's less than gas, I know. It's less than coal, but it's not like, it's less than a photovoltaic, it's much more than photovoltaic, it's much more than onshore, it's much more than offshore. And yeah, so maybe we have to get together and clear the sources. Thank you both. All right, we'll move to another piece that actually Tobias mentioned in his opening statement about the safety of nuclear. So we've all heard about major nuclear accidents, Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, we've seen in the intervening years that this technology has changed and has adapted and is used safely by many countries around the world today. So my question for both of you, can nuclear be considered a safe technology for future use? Yeah, let's switch it up. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I can make it short actually. I don't need the time. I think I've already said it. So one million years. It's a number and it's, we can't oversee. We as humans are, I don't know, around 200,000, 300,000 years old, maybe a homo sapiens like 70,000, I don't know, say 100,000 years old. But this is a number we can't oversee. We have actual, actually, we have institutes that are researching on how to declare nuclear waste as something dangerous in the future that people can see it. So they are working with, I don't know, a painting of the scream. I don't know if you know it. They're using this or thinking of using this to let people know that this is dangerous, that nuclear waste is dangerous. It's really, really ridiculous to see what's happening here and what we're thinking we're capable of somehow to deal with. And in general, the safety also of extreme weather events. I've already mentioned France. I think I don't have to repeat myself. We all probably all know about Ukraine, what's happening there. And of course, there can be nuclear power plants that are safer than others, but nuclear power plants are not safe. If something happens, I don't know, an earthquake or something, they are just that safe as we can somehow measure it. But adding up to a real big earthquake and up to a real big, I don't know, heat wave like we had in France, then we can't manage it anymore despite whatever we had about security issues before. So I'll deal with nuclear waste in just a moment, but the most famous and destructive nuclear accident at Chernobyl did not even shut down Chernobyl nuclear plant. It kept operating as a working power plant for 14 years until it was shut down at significant cost to Ukraine's future under pressure by Germany. So there were workers at Chernobyl protesting the closure of their power plant. They said, look, we've been operating it without an accident. Since then, we need the electricity. So that goes completely against the image that Europeans have in their mind of how dangerous nuclear must be, right? So it continued to operate, and not only that, that type of reactor continues to operate and power multi-million person cities to this day. I have never once met an anti-nuclear activist who knew that Chernobyl kept operating. I don't know, I would think that would be one of the most important points you could make, that it's a dangerous thing that kept going, that's irresponsible, right? But Chernobyl itself kept operating with the plant workers going every day to a job that they loved so much that they protested its closure. Right, so there's something I would note on Chernobyl, which has provided almost all the accident-related casualties in the history of nuclear, but didn't even shut down the plant until Germany gathered up money to pay Ukraine to shut down their own power plant in year 2000, like a millennial gift. Now, a note on nuclear waste. There is almost none of it. I have hugged it, I have gone in person. I don't know if you visited nuclear waste. I would give anything to take you on a European trip to go visit nuclear waste. It's open, there's a museum in Netherlands that's a science museum attached to their nuclear waste facility where they don't just have the high-level waste, they have the highest part of high-level waste, the most dangerous isotopes, separated from the nuclear fuel, the most radioactive stuff, very hot for 500 years, and they have a tour where you can walk over it and you can feel the warmth from the floor, from the radioactive isotopes. I'd say the Dutch haven't managed, and not saying that the Germans are the best or anything, but if the Dutch can manage it, I think you guys can. You have breweries that are 500 years old, as we mentioned in a talk. You can absolutely manage the safe, secure, and even educational storage of the most radioactive isotopes because there's almost none of it, and we know very well how to manage it. IAEA is a specialist in it. They can tell you the whole process. Thank you. And your response? I'm not sure if you just said that radioactive action and radioactive waste is not dangerous. I've kind of heard it, and I don't think that's anything we should really consider as right because it is very much dangerous. We have also in Chernobyl, we had people who went there and died because they wanted to fix the nuclear power plant. I mean, what we're doing here, we try to have a planet where less people are suffering. We have the climate crisis, and what we wanna do is we want to people to suffer less. And if we want people to suffer less, why are we investing in a nuclear power plant? Why we're investing in nuclear when there is so much potential to being so dangerous? I don't really get it because it's, of course, it's sometimes hard to have a more decentralized system with wind or energy or photovoltaic or water power plant. I agree that it's somewhat easier to just put a power plant in there and then people don't have to deal with it. But that's not the case. The case is that nuclear waste and there is much nuclear waste. I mean, we have some, yes, but we have in Germany, we have a whole, we have the other, it's full of nuclear waste, it's radioactive and we don't know how to manage it at all. We have higher radioactive measurements there. And why are we exposing us to this energy if we have different or other solutions that are not exposing us to this? I don't get it, actually, tell me why. Sure, I'll do a quick response. I think you posed it an interesting question, but I would reverse it. People whose responsibility it is to deliver the better life are actively choosing nuclear. Perhaps it's up to us young people to ask, what do they see that we might not? What are they experiencing? How are they deciding that we might not? Ukraine is possibly the most pronuclear country in the world and had the worst accident. Japan is less pronuclear, but rapidly moving back towards nuclear every single day and it's astonishing to see not as fast as Ukraine, but they also didn't have as bad of an accident. So maybe there's something about nuclear accidents that leads people to understand that it's not as scary as they thought. USA had the Three Mile Island meltdown and from every part of the political spectrum in America from Republican to Democrat, there's an overwhelming consensus now of moving towards nuclear. The Republicans say for economy, for jobs, the liberals, the Democrats say for climate change and for jobs, they all agree nuclear is good. We should find out why Germany is the extreme outlier, not why it's crazy that we're going with nuclear. So I would say nuclear is safe in the future and the countries that had the worst experience with nuclear are the ones now helping lead the battle back towards nuclear energy. That's what we should ask, what do they see that you might not, Tobias? I mean, there are many countries that didn't invest or also phase out now nuclear power. Italy, who didn't have, I don't know how long, but just phase out really, really fast. We have Belgium now getting out step-by-step probably and Germany, actually Germany has like three power plants is 10% of the electricity it's delivering. It's not that much we can use our wind, our solar energy to just cover it up really, really fast. And that's not an issue at all. We have a really, really mock-up debate because it's really hard to somehow always discuss nuclear power plants that we know in Germany don't have future because not politically feasible to keep them going, maybe keep them going after the winter, but it's not a thing that we will have power plants much longer, nuclear power plants are much longer. So the question is why are we having this debate when we should really invest in solar, in wind? This is the question, why are we discussing this? Actually in Germany, Germany is a really good example because we could have the debate about renewable energies, we could have the debate about really real solutions, decentralized solutions, we want this but now we have this debate on nuclear power plants and it's not really helping at all because the real transitions, the real solutions we have and we should pursue and we should debate in public that's not happening. And so what we're just doing is instead of discussing renewables, we're discussing now nuclear power plants and it's not helping the climate at all because we need the better solutions. Okay, fine, 30 seconds. Okay, you named Germany, Belgium and Italy three countries with acknowledged catastrophic energy policies that are helping destroy their economy and their clean energy programs all at once. I'm very glad you listed that group of countries because these are acknowledged to be among the worst on energy policy in the entire world. So you have to answer your question. Why do we have those three countries that you thought of who are now facing severe energy shortfalls and are returning to coal like you mentioned in Germany in emergency settings? That tells us what we need to know about the success of those countries. Can just say, we started with renewable energies around 2000 with not, we start not with renewable energy, that's not right, but we started with a good law on it. We have a really stable energy system. In Germany, the problem was nuclear. The problem was gas that we relied on gas in Russia. And that's the problem. Nuclear isn't an issue at all, but the gas and the one source of gas with Russia was the issue and not anything about nuclear power plants. Thank you. All right, we'll move to our last question. I'm glad that we got to touch on it about the energy mix in general, about renewables and the role of gas. So last question, in what way should nuclear contribute to achieving net zero? We've just discussed other technology options, so I'd like to present the question in terms of an energy mix of the future. Great, it's almost a cliche at this point, but there are times when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow, the sun is rapidly setting over the western horizon here in Egypt, the lights are going to stay on and part of the reason is that all over Egypt, natural gas plants are firing up, especially here. We're going to have smaller plants that are much dirtier, that are going to be firing up to give us all a good experience here in Sharm el Sheikh. That is the reason, for example, that Egypt is building what will be the largest power plant in Africa, the most high-generation power plant that Africa has seen will be coming in a few years outside of Alexandria. Unless we think that that's just ridiculous and our host country is making a terrible mistake, what I think we're finding is that Egypt sees the answer to this question as a resounding yes. The next host country is the UAE, which in a series of four years will have turned on enough clean energy to replace 25% of their energy from nuclear, and they are extraordinarily proud of it, not just that the plants are there, but at the safety they've been able to achieve as a completely new nuclear country in operating a novel technology for themselves with their own trained workers that they have at the controls at the nuclear plant. Nuclear power is extremely safe if we just look at the numbers, but what we've heard today is that numbers can be agreed upon or even made up, so it's important to talk about feelings. Does nuclear feel safe? I've discovered in traveling around the world, even in Germany, that even young Germans who are against nuclear are not scared of nuclear. They may not think it's safe, but they're not frightened of nuclear. The young people at COP are among the next generation of decision makers, and the fact that they are not afraid of nuclear and mostly haven't heard of nuclear explains the conversations I've been having at the desk over there. They come and they say, after they hear about nuclear, I want that in my nation. I'm going to take that to mean that without needing to look at the actual numbers that show that nuclear is extraordinarily safe, like the actual numbers, not the emotions, we're finally seeing young people's hope in the future cause them to believe nuclear is safe without needing to look at the data that proves it is. So, yes, I think nuclear is an outstanding safe technology for the future. Thank you, two minutes. Okay, first we talked about numbers and now we talk about that feelings are the real thing. Okay, I don't get it, apart from that, say, I'm not afraid of coal power plants, I'm not afraid of gas power plants, I'm not afraid of all power plants, I'm not afraid of nuclear power plants, I'm not afraid of solar, I'm not afraid of wind power plants. Why should I be afraid of it? I don't think it's, I just think it's a wrong decision. It's a wrong decision on what we should do. We should pursue solar, wind, et cetera, water. We should consider for maybe have a little hydrogen power plants that can be, if it's dark outside, and can supply us in, I don't know, some dry phases with the energy we need, but in general, it's not about feelings at all, it's about what do we wanna pursue, what we wanna do, we want to have a climate neutrality, want to have a climate neutral planet, and then we need to see what we want to do first. What we have to do first is investing in wind and solar power, we have to go down in emissions by 45% until 2030. If we invest in new nuclear power plants, then these will build up like in 15, 20 years if it's working at all. So if we see now, as we see now in Finland, it takes much longer time. So the question is, if we wanna go down with emissions, if we wanna go carbon zero, then we need a solution right now, and this solution right now is nuclear power plants. We can't build it, we can't build it in this time. So we need fast solutions, wind, solar power, hydrangea, I don't know, but this is what we need, and this is what we can do to change our energy system in the next eight, 10 years, and it's not nuclear, we can't do it at all because we just need to construct it and then so it has no future. Thank you, your response? Well Tobias, I have terrible news. People have been aggressively polling the German people not just for the last few years, but especially this year, your countrymen and countrywomen no longer agree with you. The overwhelming majority agree with what you may agree that the nuclear plant should be available either through the spring because of the crisis or through the next few years, but now for the first time, a majority of Germans say that nuclear should be part of the energy mix in perpetuity. Obviously there's been a very rough learning curve with the energy mistakes over the last 20 years with the gas as you mentioned, but there's something else. Germany has spent about 300 billion give or take on investing in wind and solar and is stuck at under 50% for renewables and then in terms of just wind and solar with that 300 billion, it's stuck at just over 30%. Over 50% of German electricity is coming from fossil fuels, a number that gets worse if you look at the private energy grids that often power the factories that pay for the renewables. Those are more heavily fossil fuels because they have to be on absolutely to run the factories. So what we're seeing in Germany is that not only do young and old Germans start to disagree with you, older Germans actually are more pro-nuclear in this case. It's one of the only cases I've seen in any country where the older Germans are seeing things differently for the young people, but already in Germany, one of the most anti-nuclear countries, the shutoff is being seen as a mistake. Now, about 6 million Germans on average are getting their power from the three little bitty nuclear reactors that only employ 1,000 people that are due to shut down production, normal production in December. Six million people's worth. That's the same as $100 billion of investment, historical investment in German solar. And we're hearing that we need more investment in solar, but nuclear is small because it's only six million people's worth. That is an outrage and people will die across the developing world because Germany is purchasing LNG tankers to replace nuclear plants that already work in their country and they are buying up Pakistan's LNG. And they are buying up LNG from all over the Caribbean and in the coastal African nations. They're buying up that LNG that no longer can be purchased at prices that keep alive people in the global South. That outrage is something that motivates me to help Germans continue to accept nuclear as safe as the polling indicates they're about ready to. And your response? Yeah, I think I've bad news for you too, as it's actually pretty wrong that we're investing in LNG because we're going out of nuclear power plants. We're investing in LNG, which is really not good because we need the heat and we don't need the electricity. The electricity, as I mentioned, is just 10%. We can substitute it really easily. That's not an issue at all, but what the difficulty is, is to replace the heat. And the heat won't be replaced by nuclear at all. So, I mean, all the things and all the causalities you've mentioned are just not right if we're starting with that we just need heat and not need electricity. So anything about investing in fossil fields in whatever country, we don't have to do this. And it's not about nuclear power plants, it's about the political decisions in Germany. And if we want to invest in other technologies in our heat system, then we can also do it without LNG, without that much LNG, without investing, without carbon extraction anywhere in the world in the next like 10 years and we can do it and we don't have to pursue nuclear power plants at all. Unfortunately, we do have closing statements, so please if you've got some response, you can incorporate it in your two minute closing remarks. First of all, thank you Tobias for coming into the lion's den and we saw an unfriendly audience and it's very brave of you and I appreciate it and I hope we stay in touch. I must say that I've heard the heat versus electricity thing and I laugh until I cry because Germany's entire electrification plan is using electricity to replace heat, which of course nuclear plants provide both heat if you wanted them to and electricity. So to say that the problem is heat and then to say we need heat pumps running off of solar at night in the winter, well, nuclear plants run that heat from the heat pumps. When the energy ministry came out with that preposterous lie, I was baffled as to how Germany had allowed itself to get in a position where energy ministers don't even know energy and they make up fake things like let's electrify heat but nuclear can't provide heat, only gas but also solar can electrify heat but not and they get himself into knots trying to lie about the nuclear plant so it's absolutely physically untrue from an engineering standpoint, it just can't be. So now that I've used up half my response with my pet peeve, the electrification of heat being said you can't do it with nuclear electricity for ideological reasons, I'll say my closing statement. I am looking at the audience here and it is extraordinary. I think we have people from Jamaica, from Jamaica, from Nigeria, I see you. I've seen plenty of young folks from Egypt, from the United States, from around the world. I think that their presence and their attention when they, I haven't seen anybody on phones, I think that says that you are fascinated by this issue and that you probably believe that there's something for you in nuclear energy but you're here at the biggest climate conference in the world because you believe in making a better world. So although Tobias said he wants a better world, that means no nuclear, I think the presence of the audience itself is a stronger statement than anything I could say. Look around you, you believe in a better world and I think from the early voting, you say you believe in nuclear. I can't wait to build that world with you and thank you for coming to this debate. Thank you and we'll have our second closing statement. Yeah, I have to respond first because if you're exposing things at life, then I really, really think or if you've said before we started we want to have a real debate and you can't always say it's a lie if it's not a lie. That's the first thing. Second thing, and this is the closing statement, I do agree that if we have working coal power plants, I don't agree for Germany because for Germany it's just a mock-up debate, we have to shut it down and for other countries it can be helpful to still run nuclear power plants because they are now built. You've already mentioned that in your opening statement and this is something that should be considered instead of I don't know running coal power plants. But apart from the building new nuclear power plants and anything else is not helping because as I said, we need a change right now and this change has to be in the next years, it has to be in the next 10 years. I say it again, 45% by 2030 reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power plants can't make this. And this is it, we can't help that they have to be built, they have many security measures that have to be installed and then it needs like 10, maybe 50, maybe 20 years, we don't know it right now. And this means we can't have reduction until 2030 with nuclear at all. That's why we shouldn't consider nuclear as part of some kind of better world and if I look around this audience, maybe it's a pro-nuclear audience, but if I look around in this whole COP area, there's so many great people who really know what they're really working on solutions, on renewable solutions in their countries, local communities, the basis and they're really working on the things that really matter and that is not in this pavilion. Thank you both for such a spirited debate. Unfortunately, we're out of time so please I encourage you to introduce yourselves to our speakers, I'm sure they would both love to speak with you further. Thank you, thank you so much for being here today. Oh, we're checking if we might have some time. Okay, okay, that's fine. We'll do five minutes because that's all that Tobias has so we'll do five minutes of questions and please keep them to the point. Thank you guys. So to you, my question is, how democratic is the nuclear debate in Europe? Who wants the nuclear waste buried in their backyard? What's the kind of engagement? And if I can get a clarification on blue hydrogen and nuclear, what's the difference? Now to Tobias, it's not a pro-nuclear audience, we are just people looking for solutions. So is it possible to industrialize Africa using solar? Is it possible? And if you look at the danger, the danger of fossil fuel going into the atmosphere in 100 years and 50 years, we've seen the impact. How soon will the dangers of nuclear come upon us? Just think in that context for a continent that needs energy now. Thank you guys. Yes, great question on the nuclear waste and I'll keep it short. I've been to absolutely beautiful nuclear waste facilities that are beloved by communities and visited by school children. That is the standard of excellence we must set as young people involved in nuclear. That is what we must deliver if we expect people to like it. Beautiful, interesting, and most importantly, accessible nuclear waste facilities that you can go for yourself and see and then if you decide as a leader of your community that works for you, then you can go for it. That is a democratic process in the countries that have pursued it so far towns have competed aggressively to host the facility because they want the jobs and the prestige that comes along with it. Finland has one open. A few other countries are working on them. Netherlands has already developed a beautiful one. We can talk about it after this. Thank you for the question. The first thing, oh no, first, the second question. So if Africa needs electricity right now, I've already mentioned it, then nuclear power plants are not the solution. We have like, as I said, if it, I don't know, it can be like 10 years but also be like 20 years that we need to install nuclear power plants. And therefore, if we want to have this change, as I said, going down in emissions, also electrifying continent that's really, really important. But then if we start it right now, we started with all the things I've mentioned, then you will get electricity more decentralized because responding to the first question, it's always done by companies, big, big companies that want to invest in these nuclear power plants. And if we really want to have a decentralized system, then we can invest in renewables at local communities. You can get right away, we can have an energy net that is really really supportive in these decentralized options. And therefore, this is, from my perspective, the way to go and not go in with the big companies that are installing nuclear power plants but go on with these centralized solutions connecting it to one energy net. For the last question, I have to give it to the woman who jumped up when we asked about questions. So please. It's actually two questions. Closer, okay. To you, the question to you is, you seem to be worried about safety, right? That's your main argument about nuclear, or like a nuclear waste. And I was just wondering if you know how many people have died in Ukraine this year? How many people die every year in Africa because of lack of energy? And how many people have died in the last 60 years because of nuclear disasters and nuclear waste management? So that's my first question. And then my second question to both of you is why is it a nuclear against renewables discussion? You're saying Africa needs energy now. That is absolutely true, and solar and wind, particularly solar, are playing a role. But Africa will have 2.5 billion people by 2050, right? And if we're gonna meet the demand for those people, we need to build now. So yes, nuclear is not gonna meet the demand of electric electricity in Africa now. That doesn't mean it can contribute in 2050. It doesn't mean if we build nuclear, we can't build renewables. In fact, we'll probably need that renewables plus nuclear, plus carbon dioxide removal and all these things, right? It's not a zero sum game. And that seems to be the discussion I hear from renewable activists and nuclear activists. No, I actually don't know about the numbers, but probably the numbers are much higher if you ask this question like that. The question is only what options do we have? And the question of options, it's also referring to the second question. The options we have on the table are do we invest in new nuclear power plants or not? And of course, it's renewables anti-nuclear debate because it's about an energy system that is steady, that has a good structure, as I said, relying on the companies, et cetera, having local communities in the center. And this is how we can build up, oh, this is how we can go further. And this is also how we democratize energy. And this is why it's a nuclear, it's also central energy, but it's a central and decentralized energy debate. And this is why it's a debate anti-nuclear where there's renewables. I know the IBCC says in some case that can somehow be helpful and I don't know if there's some nuclear power plants that in the end will be built somewhere and it kind of helps, but in general, we have not the debate about two or five nuclear power plants but we have a debate about really much investing in new nuclear power plants and that's why it's a nuclear anti-renewables debate. And I also agree we have really many people who have to be electrified but this is not the way with nuclear power plants and we can make it with renewables of, no, not. Thank you, all right, Mark. To try to be quick about this, estimates for the war in Ukraine are the low hundreds of thousands, estimates for underdevelopment. You mentioned Africa with a population nearly a billion. We're looking at on the order of a few hundred K per year from underdevelopment diseases depending on what you include, it can be higher to the low millions and that'd be an annual basis from water, air pollution from dirtier energy, lack of opportunity, leading to lower growth, lower medicine, all that. So that would then compare to all nuclear accidents. Obviously we would just like there was a factor of 10 different somehow in your outlier numbers for emissions for nuclear, we would probably disagree on the deaths from nuclear. It comes out to very low per terawatt hour difference but we're looking at the very low hundreds for deaths from nuclear plant operations, probably the mid hundreds for construction of nuclear plants. And then in terms of accidents from waste, there's been one lethal accident that I know of in Japan from a reprocessing plant to separate out the waste streams. That happened a number of years ago and I think one or two people may have died but otherwise in terms of the spent fuel that Tobias has so worried about the million years, we as far as I can tell and I've looked long and hard for any example, I want to know it. No one has been killed by the handling of high level spent nuclear fuel, which is the most extraordinary story of waste management in any part of the energy sector in the world. So I think those are my answers on the numbers for your question, great question. In terms of the nuclear versus renewables, I admit sometime I can get passionate about nuclear and it is absolutely true that solar and wind can be built very rapidly and they are built very rapidly. I will say this about nuclear, nuclear is perhaps greatest weakness is that it requires our best, our best people, our best effort and it requires focus over a decade or more. The difference I suppose is that I absolutely think that if we have challenges ahead of us like building a better world or solving climate change, the least we can do is our best over a decade or two decades. A lot of young people need those decades for your career and there's a reason why so many young people got involved in the UAE nuclear program even though it was as far away as you said 10 years, 15 years, next year's COP 27 will be primarily clean nuclear electricity from young people who built a nuclear plant and operate it outside of the convention center. That answers the question for me about cooperation. It's going to be a solar and nuclear powered conference and I for one am looking forward to it. Thank you and back to Craig. Hello, my friends working now. Okay, I just want to say thank you very much to both of our speakers and just to reaffirm that the views spoken by both of our panelists are their own and not the IAEA's. But we're very happy to have hosted this youth event and this youth debate here at COP 27. So thank you all for joining us. It was very lively discussion and I hope you all enjoyed the rest of the week here in Sharmore Shake. Thank you very much.