carlson licenses are being revoked so newspapers find a voice in critical opinions despite appearances on the show. up next stage of debates with his panel of guests stay with us for crosstalk. welcome to cross talk i'm peter all over twenty five years ago the world was coming to grips with the catastrophe unfolding it turned noble today the same could be said about the sheema what is the future of nuclear power does it run its course or is it in evitable that it will be with us for a very long time. to

cross-talk the pros and cons of nuclear energy i'm joined by william tucker in new york he's a journalist and author of terrestrial energy in paris we crossed to benjamin so cool he is an assistant professor at the national university of singapore he is also author of the forthcoming book contesting the future of nuclear power a critical global assessment of atomic energy and in austin we have robert bryce he's a senior fellow at the manhattan institute and author of power hungry the midst of green energy and the real fuels of the future all right gentlemen this is crosstalk that means you can jump in since is the twenty fifth anniversary verse three of the tragedy of chernobyl let's take a look back. at the town of unknowable in nothing ukraine is destined to stay abandoned it's high radiation levels and decaying infrastructure so this is a reminder of the worst nuclear plant disaster in human history since then nuclear

technologies have been modernized significantly to survive the accident of the scale the industry was virtually forced to reinvent itself so grating and your safety culture nevertheless those who posed the use of nuclear energy well always play the trouble card because the damage caused is hard to forget. thirty one people were killed by the chernobyl accident in the first three months but many more days later it's a result of radiation related sickness the impact on public health remains in the should to this day radioactive contamination spread over about forty percent of europe and turned the trial noble blast into an international tragedy today only tourists are committed to and to the exclusion zone but there are extreme health risks when doing so the proponents claim nuclear technology is have become much more sophisticated this chill vulnerable to natural disasters that earthquake and tsunami the tourism fix of japan turned the city of focus she went into dead zone

because afraid ation levels because she was severity level was raised to seven the same as. some experts remain steadfast in the face of chernobyl and for her shame and continued to think nuclear the only major energy source that is available when oil starts missing and running short is nuclear power and we better get prepared for many european countries continued to have the rely on nuclear power in france for example it amounts to seventy five percent of its trace it to needs to ennoble seriously undermines the nuclear industry and many countries surf used to build more nuclear power plants but resistance soon gave way to its medical in nuclear renaissance with more countries opting for nuclear energy the same may happen in light of fukushima it's may encourage a global rich think but the world is unlikely to allow it to the nuclear option and it times in the us a patrol offer cross-talk r.t. . ok william trigger new york if i go to you first

black eye for the industry or is it a knockout because of the severity of the of the action it is going to be with us for quite a while still. yeah i think it's a black eye it's definitely not a knockout we're not most countries are not going to ban the nuclear those that do are putting themselves in a real bind i mean you already see germany is floundering around what are we going to do next if we ban a nuclear italy has the highest electrical costs and europe and they think they're going to abandon that i think i think it'll it'll countries will react to different degrees some may quit altogether but those that move ahead i think are going to reap the advantages actually benjamin what do you think about that in paris i mean this is that this is a second really serious accident here and is as much as people talk about new technologies we still have the same kind of critical. level of danger seven

ok we had a twenty five years ago we have it now ok and that's all with nuclear technology that has been improved others will say these were not it this was an old plant but nonetheless tragedies out there when it happens it happens big. you know i think the first and gets corrected is that you know fukushima and sure noble aren't the only major nuclear accidents if you use the i an e.f. scale it's true that these are the only two that are level seven we did a long to know a study of one hundred years of energy accidents of my own university and we found that there are one hundred three significant nuclear incidents or accidents that either resulted in a fatal of the or cause more than one million dollars of damages so the question of will this be a blackout of the nuclear industry is probably not because the industry is very used to dealing with incidents and accidents but this is also a pretty big disadvantage to nuclear power these facilities are so large so expensive they tend to lock in different decisions so even if japan wanted right now to kind of abandon the earlier power plants they can't because they've build an

infrastructure that is so capital intensive that switching trajectories because of any reasons disaster or shortages of fuel high costs is virtually impossible which is something that you don't see with your energy efficiency measures or your renewable energy technologies which are quicker cheaper and more widely available ram as i go to you and we locked into the nuclear future we don't even have a choice right now do we. well. i agree more with with bill i think that with benjamin the the fact is for the for the near term fukushima is going to hinder nuclear development globally but look at what's happening in china a country that is heavily reliant on coal for what about seventy seventy five percent of its electricity they're planning to build sixty new nuclear reactors over the next decade it's clear that in the near term this action in fukushima is going to drive the world more toward natural gas because that's the only other source that

is scalable and as relatively low carbon but over the long term i think nuclear is going to have to be and will be part of the answer because the demand for electricity globally is so great well you know if i go back to new york william what about the cost of it i mean when when i was preparing for this program i just such a politicized issue would come across articles that say everything's just fine this is just a black eye the future is writing for a radiant and then other stuff saying these plants are there or they're getting old there's not enough new ones being built they're extremely expensive they're actually not very efficient eccentrics cetera i mean it's very intensely debated it's been debated all of our lives here i mean is it just going to continue on in the way it is because it just could always be a certain percentage of our energy needs you know like twenty percent twenty four percent whatever you're listening to. why don't i don't think you can say existing plants are inefficient they're running at about ninety percent capacity which is the best of energy any energy source and they're also immensely profitable the

average reactor in the united states is making about two million dollars a day because they had their construction costs retired and now they're just making money but the difficulty is that we've had this hiatus where we haven't built anything for twenty five years it looks expensive you toss five billion dollars to build one reactor but look at the alternatives i mean if you try to duplicate that amount of power with windmills you what you would you would spend more natural gas looks cheap because they're easy to build but who knows what the price of natural gas is going to measure and not that much of a reasonable comment there i mean they're profitable and i want to talk a little bit about energy security in the future i mean irrespective if they're expensive to make their each country see another can't country can't turn off your electricity going well i mean there are a few points the first is that bill's right that the current plants that are operating are very profitable but we're not talking about building new plants which

is prone to cost that are incredibly high cost that could be as high as eight to nine thousand dollars per installed kilowatt cost of building a new winter of mine is about two thousand dollars per install a kilowatt the only other technology that's that expensive on a capital intensive basis is solar panels and nobody's talked about making centralize solar facilities so there's not many countries the second interesting point is that when you talk about capacity factor it is true that most plants in the u.s. are actually close to ninety six ninety seven percent for the last few years but if you look at the worldwide history over the course of nuclear power the global capacity factors below seventy percent and that's largely due to what's called a steep technological learning curve with new reactors and so if we're talking about historic reactors keeping the reactors online learning are truly the point we'll go to generation three or four reactors. jump in well if you get that when you get to the top of the learning when you get to the top of learning that you don't want to quit then you that's where you got that's the point. maybe the best

example going to be a diversion to go like you know ok benjamin go ahead and i'll go to robert but you're going to. be measuring or it is just the newest reactor being bill right now which is a kind of generation three plus is the european pressurized reactor this one being built in finland and i believe one in sweden in this illustrates the complexity and the difficulty with doing a new nuclear design both of these projects are four to five years behind schedule and i've seen cost overruns of two hundred to four hundred percent so this idea that we've already surpassed the learning curve with even slight modifications of reactor designs i think it's completely a false argument ok robert jump in go ahead. well i think this is peter this is clearly the issue is how is the nuclear industry industry going to address the cost issue going forward and this make no mistake this is the real problem that the industry faces the capital costs for these these plants is that at minimum five thousand dollars per installed kilowatt and as benjamin pointed out can be much higher given cost inflation but the reality is we just have to get good at nuclear

right now i just looked up the numbers. the world's new fleet of four hundred reactors or so is avoiding about two point five billion tons of c o two emissions per year that's nearly ten percent of global c o two emissions so if we're concerned about c o two we have to embrace nuclear i think that going forward we have a lot of options going to smaller what are called modular reactors possibly for fueling them with thore i'm to reduce proliferation risks that combination of technologies can help bring the price down you go to a manufacturing type of base of production rather than a best poker on site construction methodology that could help bring costs down but in my view if you're anti carbon dioxide and you're anti-nuclear you're just pro blackout and with the global demand for electricity expected to grow by eighty percent over the next twenty or twenty five years we simply don't have an option but to continue to work hard at getting good at nuclear. all right gentlemen we're

going to go to a short break right now after a break we'll continue our discussion on the use of nuclear power stay with are. just some up to the slowest some up the biggest celebrity. the a. lovely loses its tsk

. obsessed some up costs are lucky. to be soo much brighter than. the bad songs from place to. sleep for instance on t.v. dot com. slump the the slowest slept in the book welcome back across time peter lavelle to remind you we're talking about the future of nuclear energy and. mother.

benjamin if i go back to you in paris i mean irrespective of your attitude towards nuclear energy one thing is for sure demand for energy is going to continue to grow weak specially in china was already mentioned in the program as we speak right now there's a lot of controversy about nuclear power plants being built in india and another market that desperately needs more energy and and we live in a very volatile world gentlemen i mean the politics of all oil the geopolitics of oil is out there in our face now we don't know what the world's going to be like in twenty years twenty five years but you know everybody has to plan for their energy security so mention what about that i mean irrespective you like nuclear power not . a lot of countries just feel compelled to go in that direction because it will be their energy. there's a lot with the impact with a comment first i think bill's you know soundbite that it's either pro-nuclear or

provocative is brilliant it's a great comment but it kind of illustrates the completely false dichotomy that it's either nuclear power or fossil fuels if you look including at china and india in the past five years both the fastest growing sources of new electricity supply as well as the cheapest involved in renewable electricity in both europe and the u.s. it's been natural gas wind and landfill gas globally it's been hydro geothermal wind as well as solar electricity even in china you had about six times more renewable energy capacity installed last year the nuclear capacity if you look at global investment patterns you had one hundred eighty five billion dollars invested on renewables you had about six last year and vested on new nuclear reactors you can kind of already see the market is choosing to meet increases in electricity demand with renewable sources as well as energy efficiency what's interesting is if you look at what cuts carbon the fastest as and what does the most bang for the buck about an eight to one ratio favorable to nuclear energy is energy efficiency

this is you know things you can implement demand side management practices more efficient homes more efficient you know fuel standards for vehicles that cut energy costs far below the price of building any new power plant and you may think that countries like japan or the u.s. or china haven't really tapped this energy efficiency potential or they have tapped it when in reality you've got probably thirty to fifty percent of electricity demand today can be cut with cost effective measures and these are numbers that don't just come from industry trade groups but also consulting groups like mckinsey or the i.p.c.c. just released a report a few months ago so this issue of we have to build more power plants to meet demand rather than what's actually reduce the demand first is another one of these kind of dichotomies that kind of distorts the real picture of the options that countries have to meet energy security needs it will you want to go to you i mean i don't know how inefficient countries really are. but say a. it is but it certainly has the desire the to be have it's own energy

independence here and there and nucular is one direction there you know like i said what's going to happen to oil i mean obviously they're going to still want oil and gas but this is something for a longer term because the plants last longer the investment is huge and as we've been told on this program they're hugely profitable so again kind of repeating my question i mean countries like that really don't have an option they really feel they need to go take the nuclear option for their own energy self-sufficiency. well the thing we always talk about with nuclear power is its energy density it has you get two thousand times the energy from the same volume with than you do with coal and i came across a figure there really amazed me there are something like two thousand coal mines in the in the entire world is four hundred four hundred coal mines alone in kentucky there are forty five year rainy and minds around the world right now one all russia

is talking about supplying all the developing countries with uranium on this exchange basis they have one mind one uranium mines all going to come out of one mine so you get such a tremendous advantage when you go with nuclear and of course there's your aim everywhere so really for countries that want to supply their own energy nuclear is just ideal. sure these programs are legit and you can get is quicker ok you dissented go ahead benjamin go ahead and then we'll go to robert sorry and then it's only that it's interesting that if you're talking about energy security and fuel they'll ability or uranium isn't every where you've got three countries kazakhstan canada and australia that are responsible for more than sixty percent of production and you've got about twelve countries that are responsible for ninety percent of production so it's even as concentrated in terms of supply as oil is so we've been really kind of replacing one set of dependence with another set of dependence ok robert i mean it's go down the road here of renewables because

a lot of people are saying that again i've come across very different numbers about the efficiency of investment in renewables as compared to fossil fuel and nuclear energy. sure well two to benjamin's point about efficiency look no one is opposed to efficiency saying you'd be opposed to efficiency this is akin to saying i'm opposed to air the world is getting more efficient in its energy consumption it's happening everywhere the us is now today using about the same amount of oil as it did in one thousand nine hundred eighty three despite the fact that we have twice as many cars and we're driving them at twice as many miles so i'm all for efficiency but we can't keep the lights on with efficiency we have to generate electricity why because we don't have a perfect storage method for electricity if we had such a method then that is the true game changer but with regard to renewables look at the just the latest report from the energy information administration here in the united states they estimated natural gas fired electricity is about the cheapest

form of power production and about sixty three dollars per megawatt hour on shore wind generated electricity costs fifty percent more offshore wind cost four times as much and and solar thermal cost five times as much this idea that renewables are cheaper than conventional for forms of electricity generation is just simply not true further even if it were on par they're not dispatchable the reality is we need electric sources electricity generation sources that we can turn on and off that's what gives them value having them be intermittent and highly variable gives them a real world value of essential easy ro so but i think peter just to direct the conversation if i could one idea i think the bigger problem for nuclear going forward is the issue of global cooperation with regard to the fuel cycle this is regard it addresses the issue of proliferation one of the first responders after fukushima was the international atomic energy agency this the i.a.e.a.

and the and the enabling the empowering the funding of the i.a.e.a. is going to be critical for the growth of nuclear globally in the next couple of decades what do you think about that william i mean since it's kind of global cooperation we're going to have your go ahead. yeah let me throw in that the renewals all you're going to hit with all these are no you're going to hit a point of diminishing returns very quickly you can throw up a lot of windmills at first to get up to maybe five ten percent of your electricity but after that the winds fluctuation is going to start impacting the grid and at that point it becomes a nuisance more than anything else so what happens is you have to put up natural gas turbines so you can compensate for that and as robert bryce has pointed out once you start doing that you it would be much more efficient to run baseload combined cycle gas plants just running the gas itself than putting up the windmills and having these inefficient turbines you end up using more gas with windmills than

you would without windows when you think about that benjamin because i go back to something we said earlier in the program about learning curve i mean how we reached the top of the learning curve for renewables i mean it's a relatively new i did at least for commercial use and industrial use. i mean not really of the one big advantage that renewables have in terms of learning curves and more rapid turnover right it takes two to three four maybe four years at most to build a new wind farm you've got you know pretty simple tree modulator pre-manufactured components for a lot of these types of facilities as opposed to nuclear plants which take ten to fifteen years to build if you include permit and so the ability for us to learn more rapidly and integrate that learning into new designs is much quicker when you have technologies that are like cell phones rather than technologies that are like cathedrals the other key thing about cost the elephant in the room which no one has mentioned is subsidies and externalities the reason nuclear power seems so cheap is because most of its development has been subsidized you have a nuclear sector that's eating three quarters of all global research subsidies

related to energy going back for fifty years and externalities we're talking about all of these things hazardous pollutants with uranium mining limited liability for nuclear accidents free on site storage of fuel decommissioning of facilities that are always excluded from nuclear costs if you include them the prices. nuclear often doubles or in some cases even triples so let's be honest about what we're actually including and not including when we talk about the cost of generating a certain type of atrocity william if i go to you and we did a program on energy. a few months ago and we had a gentleman on from france and he was obviously was trumpeting the the nuclear engineer in industry in france and what was was brought up is intensely subsidized by the state intensely well nuclear construction nuclear plans was never subsidized the actual construction was never subsidized the united states it was built on the old regime where retailers were guaranteed a profit but there were never any government subsidies now if you want to look for

subsidies just try the windmills the the production taxes the investment taxes the mandates whoever mandated that anybody had to build a nuclear reactor so the on the cost of reactors most of those costs are incorporated the whole business of taking care of fuel has been we've got a fifty twenty billion dollars pot of money waiting to build yucca mountain or something like that that's all that has already been incorporated what about that robert o. energy is subsidized by somebody and it's almost always the taxpayer. well that's true. depending on who you ask there there's no such thing as a free market and that's certainly true in the energy business but when it comes to the growth of renewables in places like china if you look at what has happened here in the u.s. and in fact if you look at the clean energy what is the clean energy mechanism that was mandated under some of these u.n. rules and then go back and look at china it's clear that that system has been gamed

and the chinese have been among the best at collecting these subsidies to build wind projects that some of which are not even connected to the grid so this idea that somehow investment in renewables is leading the world that this is where the world is going the world is going in chasing renewables and most of these countries simply because of subsidies and mandates it's not because the market is free is is is is saying this is the best option benjamin and she gave us one number before of something on the order of two hundred billion invested in renewables ok well that's that seems like a big number here in the u.s. the upstream oil and gas industry alone just in drilling new wells every year spends two hundred fifty billion dollars so the idea that somehow that that the world is moving to renewables because this is the cheapest fastest way is simply not true it's because it's subsidized and mandated that they're going to these inefficient and incredibly resource intensive projects particularly like wind that

uses up to fifty times more land than nuclear natural gas and by my calculations about five hundred times. the last movie we've run out of time many thanks to my guest today in new york austin and in paris and thanks to our viewers for watching us here are to see you next time and remember across top schools.

india is available to move joint people to a movie that's a great way to go to the grand imperial truly torturously. you can a little bit to see don't need to go. run to the colonel was her job as a retreat. lambing the

social media follows the feeling splayed line does david cameron calls for a balance twitter and facebook low pulls in the violent struggle streets put faith in their own strength. strips on the meter see former u.s. defense secretary donald rumsfeld could find himself in the dog to iraq war veterans are given the green light to sue him for alleged war crimes. in the media colleen angry as the government keeps a grip on the press with a controversial law hundreds of journalists silenced. a very warm welcome to you this is our see you live from moscow the british prime minister is blaming gangs of black berry phones and even social networks for inciting violence in the country.