 to the talk, devs per terawatt, our... This talk will be held in English. The talk will be held in German. The translation, of course, which you are listening to right now, is in English. But we can expect a lot of English slides, fortunately. And the talk will be about what the ideal energy mix is for our future. Our speaker is a nuclear physicist. And please give her a warm round of applause. Have a nice evening and welcome to Zelenik. So the town of Zelenik, where we are right now, has a population of only 13,000 people. And if you think about what typical Germans consume per day, and you multiply that by the population of Zelenik, you see that it's like 243 kilowatt hours. And I have put all the sources for my talk into the footnotes. So 243 kilowatt hours. So unfortunately, I don't see you guys because it's so dark here, because usually I like to ask questions to the audience. And I don't know if you guys think that this is a lot or not so much. So if you think of a nuclear power plant, it's like one point something gigawatts. So I don't know how much you consume. Of course, everyone has like an electricity bill. So for instance, I consume also like quite a bit. And so the numbers that I'm using here are of course like averages. If you look at the camp, then this camp has a population size of roughly 5,000 people. We have six generators generating electricity. And the average across the last couple of days was like 300 kilowatt hours. That means that this camp by itself consumes more energy than the entire town of Zelenik where we are right now. So this is a lot. C3 Power has a nice monitoring tool that I've shown here. This shows like the amount of fuel that's being burned per hour. And I looked at the showering area where people... And I looked at the times when not a lot of people were actually showering. And it's still a lot. And if you have like an average 12 liters of fuel for heating, what does it actually mean? So for instance also for my own home which is quite old. So if we only take the shower village... So the five days of the camp consumes as much fuel as two thirds of my household the entire year. The population of Zelenik is about 30% bigger just by this camp. And the energy consumption has risen by 120%. And where does the energy consumption actually come from? Of course we have energy, so we have light. But also people use hair dryers even under these conditions. So should people still use this? I don't know if people heat electrically or with burning things in this camp. Causes about 4 to the power of minus 4 in addition to what we would normally have produced. 10 to the power of 4 is definitely too much. And this is all based on other data that I had. Germany uses about 520 terawatt hours. If you look at the individual sectors for 2017 you see the different fractions. And also the source at the bottom is the same source for the next slide which we see here. So this is the current energy mix. About a third is coal and we have like one third regenerative energy. It doesn't sound too bad but you know one third of coal is still bad. And yeah so this is actually a lot of dirty energies that we have. And then we do what physicists usually like to do. It's doing thought experiments. We can create an energy supply for this country. It's ideal and we can basically decide what we want in this thought experiment. We only talk about infrastructure and how to... We're not talking about how to transition the current infrastructure to the new infrastructure. Just from scratch. Now we have to define some things. So what is actually optimal? So is it cost? Do you care about the cost? Do you care about CO2 emissions? Or do you care about people dying? And then the second definition that we need is energy sources. It doesn't really make sense for a state like Austria to say we're going to produce all of our electricity from offshore wind. And based on these things I have taken listed these energy sources for our thought experiment. Coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydropower. And yeah oil is not really a big factor in Germany. So I didn't include this because it doesn't really matter. And also Germany doesn't have a big oil reserves. Biomars I did not include even though it is used to some degree in Germany but there's simply not enough data or the right type of data that for me to work with. And there's geothermal energies which is something that just doesn't work with the German geography. So our variables are coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind and hydropower. These are the six that we want to use. So what do we want to optimize? We can look at the price. We can optimize the emissions. So what is cheap but also has low emissions? Availability is a factor. If you don't have oil then it doesn't make sense to use oil as a resource or hydropower. It's a classical example. So in Austria it works because you have many faults, many rivers which doesn't work in Germany because in Germany we have like just four percent of hydropower right now because there's simply not enough rivers and mountains. Then there are also external costs which is a bit diffuse or it sounds a bit diffuse. So everything that is basically collateral damage like Fukushima or Chernobyl or it's like CO2 in the air that causes people to die or any other catastrophes or... And the last factor is emotions. And emotions are actually quite important. They are important because nuclear power is evil and wind power is good. And then you can ask yourself how is this actually defined? And we can look at the data and see how people perceive certain sources of energy. So if you want to measure the price we can use the LCOE which is a levelized cost of energy. So if you take coal then of course you have to mine the coal first or if you have nuclear power then of course you need the right materials for the atomic splits. But this definition does actually not include these aspects. It only cares about the construction of a power plant and the running of the power plant. But in principle these costs... It's just for having something to compare the different forms of energy with each other. So there are actually quite complex formulas but in the end the most important part is to be able to compare different energy sources. So these formulas do not include the resources that you need to get everything run. So the decommissioning... So when a power plant is no longer being used... And if you look at nuclear waste you have to ask yourself is this something that you should include? Well maybe. The power generation costs come from this study. And this does not include hydropower. But it talks about solar power and if it makes the difference where you actually put the solar panels on the roof or somewhere else. And they also looked at wind energy. So they looked at the differences between offshore and on-land installations of windmills, of wind turbines, turbines. And you see that it's actually quite an effort to put these up. And different types of gases have also different types of costs for production. And these are the data points that are used for the generation of... And so for the calculations. The second point is emissions. There is a measure called CO2-EQ. And so this does not only include CO2 but also other related carbon oxides. These different gases are differently damaging to the climate and have different global warming effects. And in the end you still have to basically account for every factor and make them comparable. So he's another data source from the IPCC from 2014 where they tried to compare the CO2-EQ values. But technologies change and some newer technologies emit less CO2. And therefore these data points are dynamic. So this is what I used for my model. So if you just look at this then you see that coal is actually quite seducing. And of course you also see that nuclear plants don't produce much CO2 but they have other problems. So external costs are very complex but also very interesting topic. So there are many different factors that have to be taken into account. There are models that I will talk about later. So it's defined like this. So the people who are responsible for it might actually not suffer the consequences. But other people might suffer the consequences. And then these are external costs. And the polluter does not carry the costs but it's actually the people who are affected by it. For instance people who are swept away by tsunamis or by other natural disasters caused by global warming. And there are also beyond insurance accident effects. So things that are simply not covered by any insurance. Things that can only be covered by any action that a government can take care of. And then there are of course emotions. So for ourselves we consider hydropower a very safe technology. But it's not something that... For instance because there was never much of a dam break where a lot of people drank. Because there was never such a thing. Such a catastrophe. There are actually quite a lot of dam failures across the world. One example is in China. So at the very bottom of this table there is... There were a lot of deaths. And we in the western world did not really notice much of this event. And that dam break was actually a result of a tsunami. And I never heard of this event before. But this is emotions. Is it safe? Well we westerners only know it as a safe technology. This is my favorite slide. So this is part of the constitution. So this says that there is no atomic energy in Austria. So yeah we Austrians don't like atoms. So this talks about 23,000 deaths that come from a report. And this is just Chernobyl. That's the official count which of course is total bullshit. This is just the direct casualties. But this does not include any follow up deaths and illnesses including leukemia cases. And at this point we could do long term effect evaluation. But it doesn't really show up in any statistics. But then again it happened in a country that was not really well known for transparency. And we would probably never know how many people died indirectly or indirectly because of the incident. So I noted down the site. So page 276 from this report. So these are also the 135 refugees. So 135,000 refugees had to leave the exclusion zone. But this is only Chernobyl. This does not include Fukushima. But I mean if you consider that in some cases the evacuation went really smoothly. Obviously people got Yodin taps. So the casualties were not as extreme but they still happened. So again which factors do we want to optimize? So we want to optimize the price. We want to optimize the emissions. So in general. So we want to keep this low. We don't care about it right now. And of course we know that hydropower has some limitations in Germany. But I don't want to talk about emotions. But all of them. So we don't want to include these in the equations. We should make our decisions based on what is good for us. What is good for the environment and what is cheap. So it should be optimized. We talked about that already. We can skip this. External costs. I already experienced these. I went to Japan in 2011. We have some gamma spectrometry in the backpack. We have some gamma spectrograph. In the backpack the Austrian airline didn't want to fly there. So there were just a few airlines that flew there. We just flew there. We didn't know what will be there. There was no info from TAPCO from anyone. So we had a lot of iodine. So we had a nice colorful spectrum. So this was a grocery store in Japan. All the dairy products were removed. So about these external costs there are two good studies. For example, subsidies and costs of EU energy. It uses a second source. It's a report of the European Commission. It's almost impossible to read it all. There are some executive summaries. But you wonder is this what the data says? Or is this what you want me to think? So they did it. There's some thing called impact pathway. You think about what does the power plant emit? How does that interact with humans, plants and so on? Then there's the pathway. And we ask ourselves how likely is it? So either it's just that you can actually put a price on or there's deaths. And this is very sad. So usually they are not accounted for in deaths per terawatt hour, but in deaths per terawatt hour. So they actually transform the deaths per terawatt hour to euro per terawatt hour. So for example if someone can't work anymore, you just put a number on that. Or if he dies, then you put a number on that. So for getting the numbers of deaths per terawatt hour, you have to go into the depth of the second report. So then we go to the table of contents and look at the further right page. Then we see a little table very small on a big 4 page. And there's the data. So when we do this, we can't only think about how many people die when cold is transported or so on. But we also have to think about very rare events like, for example in nuclear power plants like Chernobyl. Such bad accidents also can happen for wind power. So there's two different kinds of wind turbines. So when that starts to burn, then the fire department comes. But the fire department can't do anything. So the cost there is the fire department. And you need to pay someone to remove the debris and so on. But that's basically everything. The report analyzes all of these data for the different energy sources and does so very accurately. So these are the results for the external studies. They were summarized by Staffelt and Wiktal Swedish researchers doing that for a Polish conference. They did it for the Swedish government to think about whether to turn off power plants or not. So what we see here is that oil has the most death per terawatt hour. So we see 80 deaths per terawatt hour in France. We have 520 terawatt hours in Germany. So these are really numbers that have some effect. So I took these numbers for that analysis later on. So let's go back to our thought experiment whether there's an optimal energy max that optimizes price, emissions and external cost. So we can now optimize this. So now we have the factor metrics. The sources are the ones I mentioned before. These are the hard numbers. I'll upload the slides afterwards because I didn't want to ruin the surprise. So the variables are coal, nuclear, hydropower, gas, solar, wind, all everything terawatt hours. So constraints that we have is that we need at least 520 terawatt hours. So if we only optimize for coast, if we don't care about emissions and death, then we get this. This is not very surprising because hydropower is just the cheapest one. But we only have a maximum capacity for hydropower of 21 terawatt hours. So we need another constraint. Hydropower is smaller or equal to 21 terawatt hours. So the next result is we get 21 terawatt hours, hydropower and 499 terawatt hours, nuclear power. This is only a price optimization. So nuclear power is the second cheapest one. And it's quite logical this result. So if we now look at cost and CO2 emissions, then we still get the same numbers because nuclear power has a... We have zero cost in the Department of CO2 emissions. So four... So the other sources don't have that. So let's look at the metrics again. So if we look at it, five and two cents per kilowatt hour and CO2, 12 and something else, I found that quite interesting. So if we add the deaths per terawatt hour, then we see that CO2 has the most to hydropower has one, solar power has one, but it's pretty expensive right now. Why is it possible that our nuclear power share is not going to work? So of course we can still do it better. I am a nuclear physicist, so I know what I'm talking about, but I might also be a bit biased. But I still think that there's still a lot of potential to improving how we handle nuclear power. But the question is what is actually important? What do we want to optimize? What is the focus that we should put on? Do we need to look at the cost? Do we need to look at what about the motions? Should we look at the cost? Or do we care about what is on the electricity bill? You will find me at the chaos balcony at Millieways. On Twitter I'm Julie Riede. Thanks for the BIMA template. I hardly see anything with the darkness. So if you have questions, it's really hard to see in the audience. Thank you very much, Julia. Please go to the microphones. There are friendly people for online questions. But you can also ask online. On IRC we have about two minutes for questions. Jawohl, please. Thank you. I would like to know if we include the full cost with CO2 emissions. Yes, it is. So the study does include some of the data. But it takes time to research everything. But you really have to dig deep to get all the data. And sometimes you only have data from the 90s. And the data is not really in a format that makes it easy to search. But I'm unfortunately not able to do this digging. Thank you for the answer. Question from the internet. I have a question. The price per energy for the nuclear power is does this include the waste? I told you it's not included. Because it's not part of the formula that I used. And therefore it does not include the waste disposal and the accidents that are connected to the disposal. Do you have an estimation of what it would cost like if it were properly done? I have no idea. I have no idea. That's my honest answer. So you could theoretically calculate it if you spend one to two years and dig for good data sets. But it's not possible within a month or two. But it's definitely not something you can figure out in a month or two. But I couldn't do it in this time frame, so I don't know. So ultimately I don't know. Thank you for the talk. And a round of applause. You heard it in Vortrag, depths per terawatt hour.