And it's interesting to note that at a time when we're so
focused on climate change.
And certain national governments are making the strongest possible statements
about the need to decarbonize.
Mitigate the climate change.
And really change their energy economies,
they're taking a zero carbon source out of the mix.
I would look at this from a couple of different points of view.
Clearly, one of the things that governments can do to encourage more
investment into the evolution of their energy economies.
Is drive certain types of retirement profiles.
And indeed force certain capacity off of the system.
However, it really defies logic in a carbon constrained world.
That the capacity that's being singled out.
Is one that doesn't contribute negatively to climate change relative to other
sources.
So the German example is an interesting one.
That you would leave a very carbon intense,
lignite base load unit on the system, but take a nuclear one off.
It doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense,
at least from the point of view of climate outcomes.
But nuclear power has always been very divisive,
in a way within the environmental movement.
You get a broad base of opinion on one side or the other.
Many advocating its role in addressing the climate crisis,
myself would be included in that.
But on the other side, those that are much more aware and
focused on the implications of atomic energy.
In a more general environmental sense, the issues of waste.
And when nuclear goes bad, it goes very bad indeed.
And I think that that camp actually has part of the public
opinion's attention right now.
In a way which policy makers and indeed the energy industry could
perhaps do a better job of making a case for atomic energy.
And things do move rather quickly.
If you look forward to the future of the Japanese energy mix on the basis of
the kind of trends that we're seeing today.
There's going to be more nuclear energy generated in Japan in
2020 than there was before the Fukushima disaster.
So, in a way, things can move forward.
And some of the steps that we've seen in Belgium, in Germany, look a little ad hoc.
And not necessarily contributing positively in
the way which some policy makers may perceive.
Indeed the German case again, not to belabor the point, is quite interesting.
That there's still a certain amount of atomic energy that's generated across
the border in France.
That flows in to support the German economy but
no questions about that being an issue, at least as yet.
And I think that points to the irrationality of the policy.
[MUSIC]