Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Journalist Markham Hislop interviews leading energy experts from around the world about the energy transition and climate change.
Welcome to episode 325 of the Energy Talks podcast. I'm energy and climate journalist, Markham Hislop. China's coal plants get all the attention, but China leads the world in nuclear power generation with plans to build an astonishing new, 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035. China also leads in 4th generation nuclear technology and is probably 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States. Small modular reactors, a technology favored by Canadian utilities and governments, is another area where China leads.
Markham:Like other clean energy technologies such as renewables, batteries, and electric vehicles, China has figured out how to manufacture nuclear at scale. Stephen Ezell, vice president, global innovation policy and director of the Center For Life Sciences Innovation at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, joins me to discuss how China became the world's leading nuclear power power. Welcome to the interview, Steven.
Stephen:Thanks, Mark. My pleasure to be with you.
Markham:I, this is fascinating because, I I get a lot of, we call them nuclear bros, you know? So every time the, the subject of, you know, doubling or triple tripling, electrical generation, by, say, 2050 comes up because we're electrifying our economies, and the nuclear bros jump into the thread and talk about how if we just adopted nuclear at scale, everything would be fine. But then there are the, the folks who argue on the other side of the, you know, and say, look, I mean, you know, nuclear projects, many of them are over, over budget and the the price per mill, megawatt hour is very high. And, you know, the renewables are the way to go. Give me your take on where nuclear is going to fit currently fits and will fit in the future global energy system.
Stephen:Well, I think China is certainly showing that nuclear can be deployed at scale. It can be deployed cost effectively compared to other energy solutions. So long as the industry is supported by a comprehensive whole of government approach, that aligns actors in the ecosystem that, has effective and efficient regulatory and permitting processes. Of course this is all much easier in China, where many of the enterprises themselves are state owned enterprises. The government can direct each actor and ecosystem from the banks to the construction firms to do what the government says.
Stephen:So there's no doubt that China has a lot of advantages in deploying nuclear, but that said, they appear to be showing that they can generate, electricity at a cost per kilowatt hour, 1 third of what's happening in the United States or France or Canada. So, these solutions and new technologies can work. It does require societies and and governments to embrace them. I think, you know, for Western countries, it's it's it's much more of a societal and a political question. Can we accept that, in fact, these types of 4th generation nuclear reactors, the small modular reactors, are, in fact, far safer, far more environmentally friendly, than the types of designs we deployed in the 19 fifties and 19 sixties.
Stephen:And can we, recognize that and also recognize the fact that if we are going to meet the climate goals we have set for ourselves, the reality is that renewables are not going to get us there by 23rd or 2050. We have to embrace nuclear as a source of clean, cost effective, electricity.
Markham:Steven, I I wanted to run a little hypothesis past you and, I'm old enough to remember, well, I, you know, I, I graduated high school in the seventies and that was the period of, you know, sort of the, maybe the peak of the welfare state in in the west. And the government played a big role in in economic policy and industrial policy. In fact, from world war 2, up until that time, industrial, everybody did industrial policy. And then along came Milton Friedman and, Ronald Reagan and, and Maggie Thatcher. And next thing, you know, sort of 1980 on, governments moved out of those, those spaces.
Markham:And it was more of a, a market oriented approach and government was seen as a facilitator or, you know, it set the framework with regulations and policy. That's not how China does it. China almost reminds me in many ways of that style, the how the west used to operate in some ways prior to 1980, and they get stuff done and they get it done really fast. And we've seen all of these other technologies, you know, wind and solar and batteries and EVs and heat pumps and on and on that China has learned to manufacture at scale at low cost. And and now they're doing it on a nuclear.
Markham:Given where we the history of west of the west, it with its policy, is it ever going to be able to to bring to bear the kind of all of government policy approach that will allow us to catch up to China?
Stephen:Well, that's certainly AAA that covers an awful lot of ground.
Markham:It does indeed. I apologize for that.
Stephen:That's okay. You know, I should mention that this report that we're discussing today, which I took at least a couple weeks back of, how innovative is China nuclear power is 1 of 10 reports we're doing that represents a, a deep dive industry and enterprise level assessment of China's innovation capabilities and advanced technology industries. So we'll also be looking at EVs, semiconductors, biotechnology, AI, etcetera. And, you know, to your point, especially in EVs, in solar power, China is has moved well ahead of the United States and Western countries. So certainly the, you know, what what I like to say is, the west thought we won the cold war, but it was really just halftime.
Stephen:And the communist have come out, after the half with a new team, with new colors and much better policies to drive economic growth. So I think, you know, Gerta famously said that few people have the imagination for reality. And I think that the kind of thinking we've had in the west that that only, a fully market based capitalist system is the only possible type of approach that that can work. You know, they're, they're showing that not to be the case. Now.
Stephen:I don't think we wanna adopt their approach, for a number of reasons. Right. I mean, this is not a free society, in many, many problems. But I think we've been blinded by kind of a market fundamentalism that has prevented us from seeing whether a system can't be effective, and that's to our own detriment. I think, you know, with regard to can the west catch up, I think a few things.
Stephen:1, we have to recognize that we are in a strategic competition with China and its aligned neighbors. We have to start thinking about the nature of the competition wherein as 1 that is much more akin to the cold war era, where a, there needs to be a combination of national and economic security approaches. Now in the United States, for instance, with the chips and Science Act, where we put, you know, $280, 000, 000, 000 to a science, $50, 000, 000, 000 to our semiconductor sector, that was all driven by recognition of the strategic challenge from China. And with the US losing 70% of its market share and some might conductors over a 30 year period. That's the kind of level of, intervention we had to take to restore semiconductor sector 1, of course, which America created and led the world.
Stephen:So bringing all this together when it comes to nuclear. Yeah. I think the only way we get back in a lead is if we not lose the great things our market does and our innovators do, we can't lose that, but we have to recognize that, all government is not the solution. No government is not the solution. Effective means for public private partnerships and effective policies that the government can enable private sector innovators.
Stephen:That's the sweet sauce, the sweet sauce we need to, sweet spot we need to recapture.
Markham:Yeah. I would agree with you. This is not about copying, China's model because that as you rightly say, you know, they're not a free society. There are all sorts of problems, things about China that Westerners would not feel comfortable living in that kind of society. Got it.
Markham:But on the other hand, we have done this before, as I pointed out, and and we can figure out a new model to compete with what China is doing. And what I find fascinating is, III read American, like Biden administration speeches all the time, you know, Gina Raimondo and Janet Yellen and people like that. And it was about 2020 where the Americans really got it. I mean, you guys woke up and went, holy. Well, oh, hang on a second here.
Markham:We're really dependent on China's supply chains, and that makes us vulnerable at a geopolitical, our geopolitical security is at risk here. And and then the machinery went into into high gear, and now we got all those those acts, inflation reduction act, and so on. You know, probably a trillion to $22, 000, 000, 000, 000 to $22, 000, 000, 000, 000 worth of government intervention, you know, between now and the early 20 thirties.
Stephen:Precisely.
Markham:But yeah. But the, so the question then I wanted to make a point here and I beat up on, on Canadian policy makers all the time and part of it is in, in Alberta, which is, you know, our Texas, it's the center of the oil and gas industry. I hear like senior executives saying, oh, China, bad, but but coal. You know? And that this and they dismiss China as a competitor.
Markham:And the your point about how this is like cold war 2.0, and we need and the west needs to rally around and and organize itself, with the correct policies, you know, marshal its resources, to respond. In some parts of the west, we just don't get it. And, anyway, I I just thought I'd I'd get your view on that.
Stephen:Well, I think that's a critical point. Western societies really have to begin to understand. We've had already 2 years to, reframe our thinking after the situation in Ukraine, and I don't think we've come anywhere near, seriously enough to doing so. I think 1 of the key points, you you said at the beginning, you know, China is deploying 6 to 8 new nuclear reactors each year for the foreseeable decade of once they get to a 150 by 2, 035. Why is China doing this?
Stephen:Now certainly, absolutely the case that, they have 3, 000 coal fired plans. They wanna retire by 2050. Certainly, you know, addressing climate change, goals, achieving decarbonization, certainly a key driver of why China is doing this. But there are 2 far more significant drivers of why China is doing this. 1, to decrease any foreign dependency on sources of energy, which were China for years depended upon foreign sources of, of, of oil imports, especially.
Stephen:So that's 1. They want to be fully strategically autonomous in the event of a regional conflict. And the second reason is because they recognize that cheap. But reliable electricity is critical to their manufacturing economy. So they have a first mover advantage, a cost advantage if their auto factories, if their semi fabs are able to get reliable, cheap nuclear power.
Stephen:So the point about all of this nuclear power conversation in China is it must be understood in the context of the advancement of Chinese national power. National power on the global stage, giving it just 1 more cheek in the army, like the Belt and Road Initiative, for China to pursue its national security and geostrategic objectives globally. This is a great power game being played, and nuclear power is just 1 small little piece of of the puzzle for China.
Markham:Yeah. I do agree with that analysis, by the way. And, I would add a third, point there, and that is that, it, you've seen a lot in the last 4 or 5 years of countries worrying about embedded carbon, you know, and, and it wasn't a month ago that John Podesta, the US Climate Invoice said, look, we're launching a task force and we're gonna figure out ways to, penalize high embedded carbon in in imports. And he was looking right at the China at China when he said that. And and they see it again.
Markham:This is you know, China burns a lot of coal that brings embedded carbon into its electric vehicles and batteries and so on. And by punishing that, it's a way again of advancing its interests vis a vis China. And so I would say that that we're gonna see a lot more of that and it's, yes, it's driven me in part by climate change as you, you know, as you say. But again, I agree that the it's the national security interest and the geopolitical tensions that are the real driver behind this.
Stephen:Just 1 small point here. In 2020, only 0 point 4% of the cars sold in Europe were Chinese. By the end of next year, it should be 25%. And 1 thing the Europeans have been trying to do with, like, carbon border adjustment tax mechanism is to find a way to push back on that with the carbon adjustment. If you go to nuclear, then you remove the ability of the Europeans, for instance, to play that card.
Stephen:Right? So this is yeah. To your point, that's 1 more again, the for the production side of their economy, 1 more reason why they're making this push in clear.
Markham:Now 1 of the things I found fascinating about your report is that, yes, you know, China leads in or has a has a significant advantage in nuclear patents, and, yes, it's been done very well in in developing 4th generation nuclear reactor. But its real competitive advantage here is its ability to manage a nuclear project so that they come in quick far quicker than the the west on average about 7 years, and they're very efficient. They come in on budget, the technology works, and that ability to, I I think as, I'll quote your report or China's organization innovation strengths and nuclear power pertain especially to organizational, systemic, and incremental innovation. And that's something that's a little harder to grasp, but really gives it a leg up.
Stephen:Absolutely right. I mean, this this coordination of ecosystem actors, you know, getting everybody in the value of the supply chain to kinda pull in the same direction, you know, to to, collaborate, to meet these aggressive, targets for, you know, rapid, you know, production. And it's taken them 7 years on average to deploy a facility. Whereas, you know, the report points out that, the the Westinghouse AP, 100 technology, the 3rd generation technology, of course, was designed and innovated in the United States. But we've only just finally deployed the local plant in Georgia.
Stephen:So the the the irony is that, you know, China is far more efficient and effective at deploying the technologies that we ourselves have developed in the United States. And that's down exactly the to to to ecosystem and coordination factors.
Markham:Well, let's talk about 4th generation nuclear, reactors because, to folks like me who don't understand the difference between 3rd generation and 4th generation. Maybe you could explain those.
Stephen:Absolutely. So essentially, there's a whole new set of different types of technologies that use different fuel types, and the different processing types, like, the thorium reactors, molten salt, like, kind of ion reactors. But the key point, and there, there, there are 6 different types of 4th generation nuclear reactor technologies that have been identified by the 4th generation nuclear form. That doesn't matter. What the the the key point is broadly these types of, facilities feature, passive cooling systems, meaning they don't need to rely on electricity or pumps and shut to shut down in case of failure.
Stephen:So, like, the situation we had in Fukushima and Japan, you know, this is should not happen with these types of reactors. They use cool instead of the water. They can operate higher temperatures than most other reactors, enabling them to generate, like, electricity and hydrogen, which is useful to a number of industrial applications, and they're generally less waste. These tend to be smaller types of reactors than, the the previous 3rd generation designs. But the critical point to take away, is that they don't change.
Stephen:And for this reason, their, you know, potential environmental impact is is far less. These are far safer, far less, radioactive waste emitting types of reactors than what we were dealing with in the past.
Markham:I did do a couple of interviews with, developers of molten salt reactors, and 1 in New Brunswick claimed that their model could actually use spent fuel from 3rd generation reactors as fuel for its reactor. Is that a does that help, you know, get get over the the the nuclear waste issue?
Stephen:I think certainly. Yeah. If you can, develop a new system that uses the waste of the old the technology set to provide the fuel for for the current version. I I think that's, killing 2 birds with 1 stone, so to speak.
Markham:Yeah. Now I was really surprised to learn that China is 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in its in its ability to deploy 1st 4th generation nuclear reactors. How did China get that far ahead?
Stephen:It's just a a this a broad whole of society, a whole of government from the federal to the provincial, governments in China that we are gonna, you know, invest in the r and d behind these technologies. We're gonna set up special universities to train the physicists in these technologies. We are going to, you know, build the research institutes to support it. We're gonna support, you know, the patenting. And so it's the r and d, the science, the, the technology developments, every, every step, every factor you have to consider for how do we deploy these types of technologies, the Chinese government developed a plan for, and went ahead and executed it.
Markham:So let's talk about scientific publications and innovation. I mean, this seems to be, it wasn't that long ago that China was kind of looked upon as a second or third rate, science power, you know, it's innovation ecosystem, if you will, and various energy technologies was not considered to be a threat. And in a very short period, I'm going to guess here, maybe since the turn of the century. So the last 24, 25 years, it has shot to the front. How did, how in the world did it do that?
Markham:Is it that ability of the, of the state to organize and direct rather than rely upon the private sector and markets?
Stephen:Money and manpower would be the the simple answer. I mean yeah. So our report I should tell your listeners, kind of delved into kind of kind of the literature on innovation inputs. We'll do this across all sectors, but looking at levels of of r and d intensity of scientific publications of patenting. When we look at now the kind of most cited publications, like highest impact publications in the world, China's pretty much, on par with the US now.
Stephen:When we look at, China's level of patents, nuclear patents, China's global share has increased from 1.3% in 2008 to 13.4% by 2023. So, you know, across the board, this shows that they're developing real technologies. They're they're really innovating here. Now to your question, how is China doing this? You know, China graduates 800, 000 scientists and engine engineers per year.
Stephen:And, you know, historically, many of those individuals, 1 of might have thought of as as lower quality. But the progress China has made with its universities, with the quality of its research institutes over the past 25 years is is very significant. You know, by the way, in the US right now, in the United States, if you look at who is studying at the masters and PhD levels at, US 4 year colleges in computer science and electrical engineering, over 80% are foreign born students. The vast majority from China. So if you you know what America's biggest national security vulnerability is?
Stephen:It's actually not that we've outsourced our companies. It's that we have outsourced our stem talent base to China and India. And so this is what we're seeing. And of course in our America, we send these individuals home after they graduate because we won't give them citizenship. But, essentially, certainly, what happened is that these people had to come to America's universities because we had the best.
Stephen:Best. But now a they're going back home, after we've educated them here, and now their universities are of sufficient quality where they can compete with talent. The point is, China has a much deeper pool of talent in science and engineering to support this industry than the United States. As in fact, I think my report noted we have a, a shortfall of 375, 000 skilled individuals, needed over the next decade in in in, in nuclear engineering in the United States. Yeah.
Stephen:So this is another another area, this whole stem talent question, where, the west is not geostrategically prepared for the future, global tech competition.
Markham:Yeah. Just in the Canadian context, I mean, this is not an area that I've done in, interviews on and and so I'm I'm this is just my opinion based on what I read and and see going on. But in Canada we tend to undervalue that kind of education and in you know because many of the universities receive public funding. When things get a little tight that's 1 of the areas where governments where they cut back public funding and make it difficult for the universities And then on top of that, we now have this sort of anti intellectual trend in western culture and and you see it very strongly in Canada, unfortunately, you know, where experts and and academics are distrusted and and 1 of the ways to, I guess to cut back their influences, to cut back their funding. And so you see governments, you know, sort of populous conservative governments in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Ontario doing that very thing.
Markham:And the price you pay, I think, is, reflected in China's success in doing the opposite. And and you have to, you know, this, it seems to me that 1 of the hallmarks of modern technology is that you pay up front. Your CapEx, you pay up front for it, then you get cheap operating costs. So if you want to develop industries, like the nuclear industry or whatever it is, you have to pay up front in order to develop your talent pool, your your STEM talent pool. And we're going in the opposite direction, and lo and behold, it's I guess, it should come as no surprise to us that China is lapping us.
Stephen:Yeah. It's an astute point. And I think, it's it's precisely right. You know, your friends across the border in Washington, stuck into the dean at the University of Washington. He said, you know, we could probably turn out 2 to 3 times as many computer sciences as we do.
Stephen:But you know what? The state won't fund that it it won't fund science education because it's much cheaper to turn out students with a liberal arts degree. You know, they've been in the labs. Right? And so our whole, you know, university system in the United States, it hasn't, it has been geared to turning out liberal arts grads, not turning out sciences engineers, and that's gonna, potentially bite us in the long run.
Markham:Yes. As a liberal arts grad, I have this, debate with, with engineering graduates all the time.
Stephen:Now we need the rural arts grads. I'm not I'm not I'm not saying we don't. But, like, what what my foundation is called for, like, the US creating I don't know if you remember the the, NDEA, the National Defense Education Act that we put in place in the Cold War 19 fifties, trained a 1000000 scientists and engineers. It was huge post World War 2 kind of, you know, the science education initiative. We've called for, you know, we need now a national innovation education act to train 1, 000, 000 more Americans in science and engineering over the past decade.
Stephen:We need liberal arts degrees, but, in our view, we've we've kinda let the balance get a little out of the way.
Markham:Fair fair point and grist for another conversation. So let's move on to small module reactors and this has, generated, SMRs have generated a lot of interest in Canada. The federal government is supportive. There's a coalition of 4 provincial governments. I think, I don't know if it's a little being led by Alberta, but Alberta is a prominent member of that.
Markham:And I'll tell you 1 of the things that's driving that in in Canada is if we basically squeezed most of the coal out of our power sector and is dominated by hydro and nuclear and now a growing amount of of wind and solar. And there are those there are 2 models of grid deployment or grid development in Canada. 1 is you keep the grid the same, but as you retire coal and as you maybe get rid of gas, so that you can lower your emissions, nuclear is a drop in for those for thermal technology. You know, you it's dispatchable power, and and you can replace a a gas plant with a nuclear plant and your and your grid doesn't have to change that much. Whereas, if you go to a wind, and solar model where you've got a lot of intermittent power, now you have to reengineer your grid at the same time.
Markham:And and and grid engineers hate that. You know, they hate change because the a change can lead to instability and and an unreliability. That's the thing that grid engineers hate above all else. That frequency gets out of line and next thing you know you the system is down, you got outages, you know, they are paid to make sure that when we flick the switch there's electricity in our house. And and so that's why there's a lot of, of interest in Canada in SMRs, change over gas to, to nuclear, and don't change your grid.
Markham:Now, where are we at with SMR technology? There's a big debate about that in Canada.
Stephen:You know, I I think that the variety of SMR technologies, are at a state of evolution, where they're ready to, be initially deployed. You know, we're we're we're seeing, the the terror power, there in Bill Gates' group in Wyoming, just are are now building their nutrient plan. They should have it, online by 2030 in the next 4 years. So now I think, now now, that that's that design still hasn't been approved yet by the nuclear regulatory commission. So these are are, I think, maybe, nascent, but they're just on that part of the curve that's that's coming up.
Stephen:I I think now is the time, that we should be, getting approval for these new types of designs and starting to, drive their their deployment. As we noted in the report, China has just fielded, the world's first, 4th generation, plant, and and and was leading in in SMRs. So as this I would say this this technology is is is is nascent and, getting ready for deployment, in real time.
Markham:What are we looking at in terms of I mean, 1 of the arguments against SMRs in Canada is that it's unproven technology. There is it's expected that it will be rolled out with the same problems, the same, you know, where China is strong in terms of managing those projects, bringing them in on budget on time. The the west is not, and SMRs will follow that path as opposed to the path that China has has forged. And is there anything in the SMR technology or the approach to it, you know, manufacturing modules in in factories, for example, that would suggest that SMRs can overcome the problems that, like, Vogtle had, and and be delivered on time, on budget at a reasonable cost per megawatt hour?
Stephen:You know, I think the answer is yes. I think, it's gonna be very interesting to watch the situation globally. You know, countries from, you know, Sweden to the UK to China are starting to deploy these types of reactors. It will be interesting global comparative study to see how these societies, effectively operate between the public and private sector to, demonstrate that the safety of these technologies to receive, you know, timely regulatory approval and and then deploy them. Again, I I don't I don't think we necessarily have to look at, the past situation in the US, like with the global plans to say that, you know, this, past performance is, it's certainly indicative of the future in this case.
Stephen:I mean, it does, give us now an opportunity with these new sets of technologies to almost reset the the playing field to reset the nature of the relationship between innovators and regulators in in this sector. I met you said mentioned that I do, you know, life sciences work. And 1 of the things that the US has really done very well now is, as as innovative drugs go through, like, phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 clinical trials, and they submit all the paperwork to prove safety and efficacy. Now there's a much stronger relationship with the the FDA and the companies to say, oh, if the drug isn't meeting this target or this this checkpoint, then we communicate and we iterate. And we have a sense that the role of a, of a regulator is not just to, regulate a technology that shows up on their doorstep, but to say no, there is a role to responsibly play, to assist innovators, to help innovators with the deployment of technologies that benefit society, whether they're innovative drugs, like cancer drugs, or whether they're nuclear power that can lead us down a path toward decarbonization, towards cost effective energy.
Stephen:So I think this is a societal question for Canada is is how will, your your innovators, and your governments, collaborate to deploy technologies that can potentially be transformative?
Markham:That's a very interesting question. I put some thought into it because in many ways, Canada, is has been too comfortable up to now. Our grid is about 84% clean, 60% hydro, 17% nuclear, the rest. I think I mentioned that earlier, but when you're that clean already and you've got, we've got a, for the most part robust modern, power grids that are very well managed and do it at a very low cost. I mean, some of the costs we're seeing are like in the 7 to 8ยข, a kilowatt hour range.
Markham:I mean, that's very cheap electricity and it's made us complacent, you know, as the power grid technology over the last 5, 10 years has evolved. And there's this plethora of new grid technologies, you know, around transmission, around AI, around power electronics and on and on, we haven't had the pressure to, to change that the Amer that the US has had. I mean, I look down across the border at what you guys are doing with your power grid, and it's like all hands on deck. Right? You're bringing all the technologies.
Markham:You're bringing all the, you're reforming your regulatory processes with the FERC and the RTOs and all of that, and it's it's bananas, the change that's happening. And then you look up at at north north of the border, you know, and we're, yeah, we'll get around to, you know, but what's what's the rush? You know, but we're okay. And it's that kind of, I think, complacency that is gonna we're gonna be a a big problem because you're seeing now, like, BC Hydro in the province I I live in, they released a capital plan 3, 4 months ago. They went from flat demand for 15 years, now all of a sudden they're saying, oh no, we're gonna have 2% increase in demand, every year.
Markham:2% doesn't sound like a lot, but for utility that has to build out the infrastructure and the generation supply, that's that's big growth, and it might even be higher than that depending on on where you go. So they're just grappling with things that, you know, the US was grappling with 5, 10 years ago, and and that's why and then s m the SMRs kind of fit into that that conversation a bit awkwardly, as you can imagine. And and so we really haven't come to, any kind of conclusion about where nuclear fits and and what where if where SMRs fit, if they fit at all, it's it's still very much in in flux. But it sounds like the inflation reduction act in the US has really galvanized all of the, basically, the energy sector writ large. Is that fair to say?
Stephen:Yeah. I think it's fair to say. And, you know, I think the this this Biden administration is is is is adopted, but not in all of the above energy strategy. It's at least, you know, been willing to show an embrace of of nuclear technologies, which which isn't a change from previous administrations of that ilk. So, yeah.
Stephen:And certainly to your point, we Texas, where I'm from, and other US states have had some high profile fields recently, that are animating a change in our, energy grid energy system. But, yes, I that's all that's all, accurate, I think. And, no, I think, the push to decarbonization, but also reckon recognition of this broader China challenge, that that's animating a lot of policy change right now in Washington and the United States. So I think you're this is 1 more area where we're seeing the impacts of it.
Markham:Well, it is it's I'm glad that our, our biggest trading partner and our, oldest neighbor, biggest ally gets it and hopefully some of that will leak across the border in the next few years and can and Canadian policy makers, and thought leaders will will get it. Stephen, this has been fascinating. III confess to you that I'm kind of been on the fence with nuclear. I've you know, we see the rapid expansion of solar and and to a lesser extent, wind now, wind was leading now, solar is is, taking a lot of the new construction generation construction. And, basically, my my approach to this has been, let's see what nuclear can do.
Markham:If nuclear can can if it can make the argument and to the regulators and to the investors and or to governments, then have at it. You know? Go ahead and build them. And if it can't, well, move on. We'll look at other technologies.
Markham:So given that sort of show me attitude, do you think over the next 5 to 10 years that that nuclear is going to show western governments that it's ready to play in the sandbox?
Stephen:I think it will. I I think so. Yeah. I'm a believer. I'm I'm I'm, like, of of of these new types of of nuclear reactor designs of the and especially United States where the the need to provide critical base load power reliably, cost effectively, energy consciously.
Stephen:I I that gives me confidence that, these new forms of nuclear reactors, will play a very important role in, our nation's electrical grids going forward.
Markham:Well, on that note, Steven, thank you very much for this. This has been a very interesting conversation.
Stephen:Markham, thank you so much for having me. It's been a pleasure.