Geoff Cutmore:  Thank you very much,
everybody, for coming to my panel.
It's heartening to see so many people
interested in the issue of energy
security, obviously a critical matter for
the world going forward and in the context
of post-Fukushima.
I hope we are going to have a very
interesting conversation.
I was just going to apologize for the
weather but I don't think that's
my responsibility, although if I had wanted
the rain, I could have stayed
in London, but not really.
But we will dive straight in to the session.
God, you're a hard crowd, aren't you?
I thought I might get a laugh
at least from that line.
Okay, let's move on.
Let me introduce the topic and our panel
to you.
How is the Japanese nuclear crisis
redefining approaches to energy security?
If I can, in no particular order,
just say that we are very pleased to have
with us Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli,
the Minister of Energy for the UAE; Mir
Changez Khan Jamali, Minister of Science
and Technology for Pakistan; Yorihiko
Kojima, the Chairman of the Board for
Mitsubishi Corporation;
Qin Haiyan,
the Secretary-General of the Chinese Wind
Energy Association; and Artem Volynets,
the CEO of EN+Group from
the Russian Federation.
Ministers, gentlemen, thank you very
much for joining us on this panel.
So I just want to put this in context
before I get into the meat of the
conversation and give you some
very quick nuclear facts.
Many of you are probably aware of these
facts, but for those of you who are not,
maybe it will help to put things in context.
Thirty three countries currently run
nuclear plants around the world.
The U.S. is the leader in the sense that
it has 104 nuclear plants; that
is the most of any country.
Russia is building 11.
China is building 28.
That's about 40% of the current number
globally that are under construction.
Fifty two more plants are planned.
India is planning for 17.
So you can clearly see that there is very
large growth in the non-OECD world.
Fukushima, of course, sits alongside Chernobyl
and Three Mile Island on the
list of well known nuclear accidents.
In the wake of Chernobyl, of course, and
Three Mile Island, we had a period of
scrutiny and review, but ultimately, the
world recognized that nuclear technology
was probably the cleanest and the
most acceptable form of energy for many
countries going forward.
It didn't really derail the long-term
planning for nuclear.
So what about Fukushima then directly
after the March accident? The then-Prime
Minister Naoto Kan said,
"Japan must end its reliance on nuclear energy."
Nuclear energy represents I think about
30% of Japan's electricity supply.
The new Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has
reconfirmed Japan's commitment to nuclear
energy, but of course, there have been
developments on the renewable side.
And a newsflash for you -- since I'm in
the news business, I thought you might
like this -- a Japanese Trade Ministry
official said today, "Japan will join the
race to develop floating wind turbines to
use off the Northern Pacific Coast."
That is the Fukushima Coast.
The aim in this policy is to overtake
European leaders in this space.
Quite how Japan is going to do that with
a $10 trillion debt remains to be seen,
but perhaps that's one of the questions
that we can get into with our panel.
So let's begin our conversation.
And Ministers, if you will forgive me,
I would like to start with our
Japanese representative on the team here,
our friend from Mitsubishi.
And let me ask you, if I can, about public
attitudes now to nuclear technology in Japan,
how acceptable nuclear technology
is as a dominant supplier of energy
for the country going forward.
Yorihiko Kojima:  Well, today's Minister
of Economy and Trade is a new minister.
Therefore, I don't know what's his basic policy.
But as far as the Fukushima is concerned,
resolving the Fukushima nuclear accident
is Japan's top priority anyhow.
And a committee was set up May this year
and then they are now starting and what
they should do and they will announce in
the very near future and we expect it.
But now, the new cabinet is
now doing so many things.
I don't know but as far as the nuclear
power plant is concerned, as you said,
actually, just is around 30%, 33 or 34%.
And this is a very important energy
and particularly for the industry.
And otherwise, to replace with the renewable
energy, it may take some more time.
It may take some more cost.
It may take more technology.
That is our understanding.
Therefore, firstly, we have to stay,
finish what happened in the Fukushima,
and two, establish new security standards.
And then afterwards, then total energy
bans and -- in the government and the
private and the -- to reach some conclusion
at least the first part of next year.
That is my understanding.
Geoff Cutmore:  So if I understand you right,
and I just want to be very clear on
this because this is an important issue,
you feel that over time, the shift will
not -- the shift in the energy mix will
not move significantly to non-nuclear
forms, that 30% contribution will remain
constant and the government will remain
committed to nuclear once perhaps
some of the fear subsides.
Yorihiko Kojima:  And totally closed is
not so easy because Japanese industries
fully rely on this nuclear power,
and otherwise electricity cost is now increasing.
And under such, Japan, in the end,
is very, very strong right now.
And otherwise, Japanese manufacturing
industries escape from Japan to the outside.
That is a negative effect towards
the Japanese economy.
Therefore, however, we have
to analyze what happened.
We have to establish security
standard for that.
And then at the same time, the government
and the private discuss very seriously
about the total energy ban in the future.
And this important thing is the time
frame and the technology and the cost.
And therefore, the new cabinet just
started to discuss about that.
That is my understanding.
Geoff Cutmore:  Again, let me just come
back because I think I understand but I
just want to be very clear here.
The public mood in Japan is not so
extreme against nuclear technology now that
it will force the politicians' hand.
I understand what you're saying about
new standards, new safety.
Of course, that's something that
everybody wants to see.
But has public opinion not changed
so significantly that politicians' hands are tied?
Yorihiko Kojima:  Yes, you're right.
And in Japan, three financial gurus,
-- all of them support nuclear if the safety
and security is committed.
And otherwise, Japanese -- may have some
serious problem.
That's the reason.
And total Japanese nation might be a bit different.
But that's the reason why I  insist that
the government and the private sector have
to discuss seriously about that.
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay.
I'll come back to you perhaps when we
talk a bit more about technology.
But I want to just initially get on to
this question of what impact Fukushima has
had in the roll-out of technology.
The Minister of Energy for the UAE has
kindly said I could call
him Mohamed from now on.
So Sir, I understand that the UAE is already
in the middle of a construction
program of a nuclear facility.
Can I ask you what, if any, impact did
the Fukushima disaster has on your thinking?
Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli:  Well, before
I answer your question, I have a small
story to tell.
In --, they used to levy a fine on people
who come to the conference with a tie.
They must have collected a lot of money
and maybe started to get away with it.
I'm not suggesting that but I want to
submit to the audience that the fact that
I decided before I put on my tie today am
I going to be fined or not? So I
decided not to wear a tie today,
thinking of the fine in mind.
But I mean that's the story.
Answer to your question, yes, the UAE, as
you all know, is a country rich in hydrocarbons.
We have a lot of oil and a lot of gas.
But we need to diversify our source of
energy and we actually opt to go for
the renewables and also nuclear.
Our strategy for the nuclear power will
not change because of the Fukushima incident.
What the accident means, incident means,
it means putting much greater emphasis on
the nuclear safety.
But in the long run, it will not derail
the plans for the future.
So we are in fact fortunate in the sense
we are at the inception stage.
We can take stock of what really
happened, the latest safety
features in our plan.
And at the same time, bring in the expert
and the regulators to actually provide us
the right advice on how to proceed.
But as far as UAE strategy is concerned
and future plans, we are going ahead
with the nuclear reactor.
And I think, to be honest, just because
of Fukushima incident, we just cannot
condemn the whole industry.
With the world at the darkest, we need to
really look into the safety measure.
But I think as far as the industry,
it's a huge industry.
That's 14% of the world that
is generated by reactors.
There are 440 reactors already operating
and there are over 320 plans.
So you just cannot completely
destroy that industry.
I think what happened put us on alert to
really do something to improve the future
safety of the nuclear.
Geoff Cutmore:  And this might seem like
a little bit of an unfair question, and I
don't want to single out the UAE,
but alongside the news belt that I've reported
on with the nuclear accident, obviously,
I thought a lot about the Arab Spring over
the last six to 12 months and there
has been instability in the region.
Should that be of any concern at all when
we are discussing something as perhaps
dangerous as nuclear material?
Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli:  Well, I'm
not really in the position to answer the
question, but I think people need electricity.
They need power.
They need actually to cool
their homes in the summer.
They need really energy.
I think no one from which -- whether it
be at any Arab country, I think people are
being educated of the dangers of the nuclear.
And I don't personally see that as really
going to halt the progress of the nuclear
strategy in the Middle East because
of what's been going on.
Middle Eastern country has always been in
the turmoil for as long as we can remember.
But business goes as usual so I don't
think really it's going to have a great
impact on the [cross-talking]
--
Geoff Cutmore:  So this has -- really, what
I'm asking is if it bears no impact
on the decisions that you are making as
a nation? Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli:  From my
country's point of view, we do not see it
and we are proceeding ahead for what
really -- UAE is really not involved directly
in the turmoil taking place.
But this the short term.
We think really in the long term.
Long term seems to be working.
Geoff Cutmore:  And just to come back to
that point about you are obviously very
energy rich in carbon-based sources,
when you took the decision to pursue the
nuclear technology path, there are other
sources of renewable available to you.
There is a great deal of thermal and sun
in your part of the world.
I mean why go after nuclear technology?
Why not pursue renewables or some other form?
Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli:  That
is a very good question,
Geoff. I think we employed an independent
consultant who looked into -- in fact,
although we are hydrocarbon rich but
we are in fact importer of gas.
We actually import gas from Qatar at the moment.
But the reason why we did this study,
to see what the best way to really
power our generators that use gas.
The gas we have is not sufficient.
We are now importer of gas.
We produce a lot of gas but it used to
be reinjected back into the oil fields
and some of it actually exported
on long-term contact basis.
We looked at of course we can run the
power generation on diesel, on gas oil.
We can run generators on crude oil.
But that's not really efficient.
So we looked at all the factors, from
the environment point of view, from the
efficiency and from the long-term
and the cost effectiveness.
And the nuclear was actually
the best for the gas option.
That's why, how we decided to proceed with
the nuclear option, plus, of course,
the renewables.
And now, we have the IRENA,
the International Renewable Energy Agency
is in UAE, and that's going to actually
promote what the UAE is doing for the renewables.
Geoff Cutmore:  Thank you very much.
Let's move to our other minister, if we
might, the Minister of Science and Technology
for Pakistan, Mir Changez.
Pakistan has had nuclear energy
I think, what, since 1972?
If my research holds up, that was
the groundbreaking on the first nuclear plant.
So there is a long history of nuclear
energy usage in Pakistan.
Perhaps what some of the audience may not
know is that you are currently engaged in
a program of planning new plants
in coordination with the Chinese government.
Could I bring the similar question to you then?
Why are you pursuing nuclear technology
as the right energy choice at this point?
Mir Changez Khan Jamali:  Presently, we
are facing this energy crisis in Pakistan.
And our energy is not mostly on this
nuclear energy but we are planning because
it's, in our view, it is cheaper compared
to the other energy, what we have in the
present situation.
The alternate energy will take time.
We have other sources also, like hydro
power, like coal, other energy, but it
will take time.
And  we have this raw material and everything
and then the expertise and so
we can -- we need this nuclear energy because
we are already deficient in the
energy in our country so we
have to help our people.
So whatever possible thing we can
get from, we will go for that.
Geoff Cutmore:  And I was asking earlier
about the public view, public opinion
towards nuclear.
Can I ask you how mindful is the
government of domestic public pressure
over fears of the safety of nuclear or otherwise?
Is that an issue at all with the
Pakistani general public?
Mir Changez Khan Jamali:  Basically, it's
not an issue with the Pakistani public.
But the Ministry for Science and Technology,
we can see this, the problems
with natural disaster which has affected
Japan, the advanced country.
So we have to be very careful and be more
conscious regarding the safety measures in
Pakistan.
But as far as the public pressure
is concerned, there is no such public pressure
in Pakistan but there are needs.
They want more energy to be supplied to
the public from any source from anywhere.
Because we have a lot of population there,
we have a labor force, but due to
the energy crisis, we are facing a lot of
shortages which is affecting our industry,
our labor, overall situation, economic
situation in Pakistan.
It is affecting them.
That is why.
Geoff Cutmore:  So this is quite interesting
because in reaction to
Fukushima, obviously, we've seen countries
like Germany abandon or effectively
comprehensively say that they are
walking away from nuclear now.
And we've seen other developed world economies
that have very aggressively
reviewed their nuclear energy programs.
Is it a question of they have the luxury
of having full supply, in effect, of energy,
they have the money available to
buy other forms, there is a difference in
their attitude because people do not have
to worry about blackouts or brownouts or
problems with supply at different times of day?
Mir Changez Khan Jamali:  We have never
-- Germany, they are a developed country.
They are advanced.
They can make things what they decide.
But in our country, the situation is different.
We are facing a lot of challenges and we
have these natural disasters there also.
And the public demand mainly is that we
should get the energy to come up
with these crises and all that.
We are a total different situation
in Pakistan so --
Geoff Cutmore:  And can I ask you why you
are pursuing Chinese technology and
a relationship with China on this rather
than going with other companies?
Mir Changez Khan Jamali:  I think we have
a long history and good relations with the
Chinese and it's I think 60 years old now.
We are comfortable with the Chinese
people and we can be more efficient
and comfortable with the Chinese.
Geoff Cutmore:  And Washington has
expressed concerns, but then,
Washington always expresses concerns, about the
safety and about the partner that you have chosen.
Are you concerned at all about those comments
from the president and others?
Mir Changez Khan Jamali:  Yes.
As a government, we have to be very
careful and we are more conscious
about the safety measures.
But as far as the demand is there,
we have to go for this nuclear.
Geoff Cutmore:  So I take that as a no,
you're not concerned at all about --
Mir Changez Khan Jamali:  Yes, as you can see.
Geoff Cutmore:  Good.
I'm glad we're clear on that.
Can I bring the conversation to Artem
Volynets, the CEO of EN+Group?
It's interesting so far, we've listened to
a number of our panelists who clearly do
not seem fazed at this point by fallout,
if that's the appropriate term,
post-Fukushima and public opinion.
Could you help us understand the view in
Russia? Artem Volynets:
I think you need to
separate the short-term, emotional,
sometimes politically charged reaction
from the long-term reality of supply and demand.
And being a private business, I try to look
at supply and demand realities first.
Our station is pretty simple.
In country we are currently present,
70% of energy generation depends
on coal-fired power station, all right?
700 Gigawatts out of 950 is coal-fired.
China comes in the industry with a half
billion tonnes of coal per year that
is increasing by 200 million tonnes of coal
every year.
Chinese demand for electricity increased
roughly 75% -- 35.
Whatever we do in other parts of energy
mix will not significantly reduce
this dependence on coal.
It goes against the stated goals of reducing
CO2 emissions by 45% by 2020.
So the key is not working away from nuclear.
That is just simply not possible.
The key is diversifying the energy
mix and developing new technology.
There is no single technology which is
a miracle, fool-proof, and then completely safe.
There are more people who die in coal accidents
per year than in any other way
of producing energy source everywhere
globally in the world.
I don't know, not that many people know
but a lot of birds are killed by the wind
turbines because the edge of the blade travels
at supersonic speed and the birds
don't know that.
So I'm sure you'll have a lot of
Greenpeace actions in that part of energy.
What we believe is two things: one,
diversifying and two, developing new technologies.
In the Group, we have a 20 Gigawatt
hydropower business which has all
the potential  supply in China, which is
a clean technology.
That's one option for China, to diversify
it, for example.
Second is a new technology.
We are developing a small nuclear reactor
which we believe is the next generation of
nuclear technology.
It is not going to replace major power
stations which produce Gigawatts.
It's only 100 megawatt.
But they can drop within the middle of
Africa and the middle of Siberia with
power and mining town, for example,
or a little village.
And that's a very advanced technology
which has been in operation with some
Russian -- mines for quite a while and
has a different safety standard.
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay.
I just wanted to ask you, PWC did a study
on what impact Fukushima could have in terms
of nuclear capacity, and they ran
the numbers through to 2035.
And based on sort of 2010 energy plans,
they looked at the amount of capacity and
they came to possibly a worst case
scenario that 180 Gigawatts could
come out of global supply.
Do you think that's, given where we have
come to from the March accident, do you
think that is a credible outcome or probably
widely off target given what
you've said about how emotion
runs hot in the early days?
Artem Volynets:  I really wonder who
were the recipients of this survey.
If it's by politicians, perhaps
you might have a bigger gap.
If they were talking to the industry participants,
I think that that perhaps
would be an overstatement.
Even from the political point of view,
if you close down all the nuclear power
stations in Germany, that still will not
prevent the German population from potential
nuclear accident that may --
hopefully will never happen
in the neighboring France.
So I do not think that we'll have
a significant reduction in nuclear developments.
Possibly, we will have a slow-down, as
people like us debate and look at the
possible increased security measures
and new technologies.
But fundamentally, we are moving in the
world where nuclear is always going to be
part of the energy solution.
Geoff Cutmore:  And just one other quick
question, one of the ways I think
that developed world governments are tackling
both their public deficits but also their
need for energy is extending the life of
old plants currently.
And the Americans and the Brits have
talked about adding another 20 years on
the plants that were only really designed
to run for 40 years.
To your mind, as someone who commercially
operates in the sector, are they running
risks in doing that or do you feel that
the world should feel comfortable that
they are on top of the safety issues?
Artem Volynets:  That certainly is
a concern, in my humble opinion, because as
we all know, the major nuclear disasters
that happened in the last hundred years
have been on a different type of technologies
being introduced today,
which, we believe, is the next
generation of safety measures.
Therefore, perhaps the solution is not
working away from the nuclear sector but
moving faster to the next generation of technology.
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay.
Mohamed, you seem very interested by that point.
I think you have something to say? Mohamed
Bin Dhaen Al Hamli:  I want to say
that I fully support what Artem is saying
regarding the we need all type of energy.
We need oil and gas, fossil
fuel energy, the nuclear.
I think we are struggling.
We're actually struggling with the
building up capacity.
The world is really -- because now,
we are, as oil producers, we are trying on
investing heavily to really raise capacity.
To raise capacity will ensure that the
prices remain stable or at least the
market can really be assured in case of
crisis at least they can always call on
addition oil supplies.
I mean that's the philosophy for building
up capacity.
So now, I think when we look into --
everybody needs energy - nuclear,
renewables, fossil,
coal. But I think I'd love to see in the end
that all forms of energy can be economical.
And what I mean economically, that
no interference from whatsoever.
No subsidies, nothing, because that way,
you create an environment where really,
the market determines the price of that unit.
Geoff Cutmore:  Yes.
Well, thank you very much for giving me my
next question to the guest I want to bring
in next,   Qin Haiyan, the Secretary-General
of the Chinese Wind
Energy Association, and that is
the nub of the issue, isn't it?
Without subsidies, wind energy doesn't represent
a potent threat to what nuclear
power can bring.
Qin Haiyan:  I'm sorry.
I think maybe I answer your question in
Chinese.
Maybe -- so please --
Geoff Cutmore:  Yes.
The question really is the viability of
wind energy as serious competition to nuclear.
Qin Haiyan:  Yes, I know your question,
okay. Geoff Cutmore:  Yes.
But you're going to answer in Chinese?
Qin Haiyan:  Yes, yes.
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay.
Everybody get their headsets on.
Qin Haiyan:  I'm sorry.
[Speaking in Chinese]
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay.
Let me put a few points to you.
Maybe we can let you back in, but I just
want to put a couple of points
to you, if I might.
China is planning, what, another 57, did
I say at the beginning -- 52 more nuclear plants;
27 are under construction or 28
currently under construction.
This doesn't sound like a country that's
ready to abandon nuclear technology at
this point.
And of the capacity of Chinese wind
blades, turbines, et cetera produced last
year, 50% of it was exported, is my
understanding, for the rest
of the world -- 1%.
I think my numbers might be slightly awry
but only 1% was actually used in China itself.
It's obviously significant.
More must have been exported than my 50%.
But only 1% of what was produced last
year was actually constructed for the
Chinese market.
So it sounds to me what you're saying
is wind energy currently is a developed world
vanity but it's not a developing world reality.
Qin Haiyan:  [Speaking in Chinese]
Geoff Cutmore:  And just one more
statistic then.
What percentage of Chinese energy
consumption does wind represent?
Qin Haiyan:  [Speaking in Chinese]
Geoff Cutmore:  Thank you very much for that.
Well, let me open it to the floor
and let's take some questions.
We've had some very interesting comments
made and I think we can see a clear sort
of split in the approach towards nuclear
now currently in the developed family,
the developing world, though I hate using that term.
Let's say "faster growing economies."
Yes? Can I have
that lady?
You want to say something? Can we get
a microphone to this lady over here?
Female Speaker:  [Speaking in Chinese]
Geoff Cutmore:  Can I bring you to a close?
It's been a very long statement
and a very long question.
Female Speaker:  Okay.
Geoff Cutmore:  I'm still not quite sure
whether your issue was with whether the
Chinese government's nuclear program will
adhere to proper controls or whether you
think the Japanese industry is not
listening to its own people.
Just very briefly.
Female Speaker:  [Speaking in Chinese]
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay,
fine. Would anybody like to respond to
that point? I mean I think we've had a number of
responses from you earlier where you felt
that it wasn't going to be a major issue,
but Japan would be tightening up
its monitoring equipment controls.
Should Tokyo Electric Power have been
shut down permanently, do you think?
That's a very political question and
one probably quite difficult for you to
answer, but do you have any further thoughts
that you can add on the issue of
control and regulation? Yorihiko
Kojima:  Well, as I told you,
in Japan, now, the committee is analyzing
what happened and also, the important
thing first is how to resolve the
Fukushima, the fallout, and --.
And also, at the same time, and I
understand the government is now
analyzing, via the committee, why this happened
and how to establish the security
standard for future.
And afterwards, the government and the
private sector working together to decide
the energy brands for future and therefore
-- and now, I myself, my understanding is
we are working very hard and therefore,
I don't know what the Internet is talking about.
But right now, I myself feel and the important
thing is how to analyze the results.
And my personal feeling is this
is not only the earthquake.
Tsunami was a very big shock for
the disasters, I think, and the level of that
tsunami is very, very high.
But from now on, and with this kind of
very high tsunami, everybody, electric
power company have to predict those things.
Therefore, these kinds of discussions
are now undergoing.
That is my understanding.
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay, yes, thank you.
Can I just ask you very quickly, have you,
in any way, reduced your plans for
capital expenditure on nuclear R&D
or investment post-Fukushima?
Yorihiko Kojima:  I myself am not government.
Therefore --
Geoff Cutmore:  No, no,
no, Mitsubishi Corp.
Yorihiko Kojima:  Ah, Mitsubishi Corp.
In the Mitsubishi Corporation, we are just
a trading company.
Therefore, Mitsubishi Group Companies
and the main have to think about something.
But I don't know.
They are awaiting the results of the analysis.
That is my understanding.
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay.
We'll take that as an answer.
Yup, get a microphone to that chap there.
Male Speaker:  Yes.
My question is to the minister
from Pakistan and the UAE.
I'm originally from Pakistan and I'm
wondering what the plans are for the
pipeline from Iran.
There has been some agreement and I'm
wondering also if the UAE government would
be interested in investing in that project
given their own experience with
the Dolphin pipelines.
And so natural gas is increasingly
considered very important.
Mir Changez Khan Jamali:  We had an
agreement recently with the Iran
government and I think it will take about
three to four years' time and the gas
pipeline and then converting into the
power generation system so it will take time.
But we are considering as
a neighbor country Iran.
Whatever the alternate source we should
get from, we are getting for that.
Our government is going for that.
Geoff Cutmore:  Mohamed?
Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli:  As far as the
UAE is concerned actually, we do invest.
We also -- joint venture.
Each project has to be looked on its own merit.
It has to economically pass the test
in order to -- with it or not.
So in UAE, I don't think we
have looked at the project.
But there are so many projects that are
pipelines that are between Turkmenistan,
Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan.
There are so many and these have been
talked about for a long, long time.
And unfortunately, we are not really
seeing any positive results so far.
I hope that -- this is really very important.
These, the gas pipelines are important.
I think this is really -- you talk about
the fossil fuel oil industry and oil and gas.
I think you don't only talk about production.
You have also to talk about the pipelines.
And what we are seeing nowadays,
the Russia, the pipelines from Russia to
China, that I think is a major breakthrough.
That really is very important.
Also, the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan
to China.
I think these are the new developments.
This is really what the oil
and gas industry means.
Not only the upstream but also
the downstream, the pipeline.
Geoff Cutmore:  Yes.
Which takes us off on a whole another
panel, I suspect.
That gentleman next to you wanted
a question, I think.
Take one there.
Marcus Bloomberg:  Marcus
Bloomberg from Germany.
Being a lawmaker in Bavarian State Parliament,
I understand that we took
a very, let's say, ambitious brave decision
by phasing out nuclear power by the year 2022.
I would be interested in the panelists'
opinion if you think it is feasible or
possible to turn an industrialized economy
like Germany into a clean economy without
de-industrializing it.
Do you think that might even bring an
economy like Germany to competitive
advantage or is it, in your eyes,
a competitive disadvantage for
the companies in the end?
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay.
Thank you very much indeed.
Who would like to have
a go at that? Yes?
Artem Volynets:  I wish that your
very ambitious vision will be successful.
Again, starting from a slightly different
basis than a grand vision policymakers,
you look at costs and operating costs.
And on that basis, if you have
a significant share of hydro power perhaps,
then it's possible to move into totally
renewable-based economy if you're
moving away from nuclear.
On the wind generation, I would pass on to
my colleague on the left as to say when
the operating costs of wind power station
would be competitive enough to sustain
a large industrial production base such
as in the very advanced economies like
Germany.
But there are statistic and statistics,
and some statistic is more important than --.
In China's Five-Year Plan, the share of
renewables plan to grow from 8%
in total to slightly about 11%.
So there is a large growing demand.
So even here, we don't see a significant
shift in the energy mix so that the country
would stop being dependent on coal
and nuclear and other types of production.
I would really wonder where, what the
Germans' plan for change in this energy mix.
One option obviously is Russian gas but
that also can be politically challenging.
Geoff Cutmore:  And could we ask
you, Secretary-General, I don't know if you
want to comment on that, the question on
Germany's transition, whether they will be
able to remain an industrial force if they
are moving away from nuclear, a technology
that gives them good base load?
Qin Haiyan:  [Speaking in Chinese]
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay.
Okay, thank you.
We've only got time really for a point to
be made, I think.
Your hand has been up for a while so
maybe we can give you a microphone and
then we might come to a conclusion.
You could make it a point rather than a question.
Mamoru Kushi:  My name is Mamoru Kushi.
I'm at Fukushima University.
Now I will speak in Japanese.
[Speaking in Japanese]
Geoff Cutmore:  Well, let me push that back
at you because we don't have time to
take the conversation very much further here.
But you yourself must have a view.
Can you hold on to the microphone? Could
you hold on to the microphone
and just give me perhaps your answer? But
I suspect I know what we might hear
from our panel, but I'd be interested
in hearing your view.
Mamoru Kushi:  [Speaking in Japanese]
Geoff Cutmore:  Okay.
Thank you very much for making the point there.
So let me just draw this to a close.
I think if we were looking for a very even
and balanced conversation on nuclear
energy, I would have to say, in all honesty,
that our panel is probably the
wrong makeup for that.
It's a slightly unequal contest for you,
Mr. Qin, representing the renewable sector.
But I think we've appreciated all the
contributions that have been made and I
think the message that seems to be coming
across is that nuclear has a very strong
future, particularly in the faster growing
economies of the world at this point.
But, having said that, there is, I think,
a strong commitment to a mixed energy approach.
Renewable may have a lesser role to play
in some economies at this point
than it does in others.
China, of course, very keen to see renewable
grow as a part of the mix,
a part of the contribution, but at least
gas and other carbon forms or carbon-based
forms of energy will be around
for a long time to come.
Thank you so much everybody for coming
to the panel and I want to thank our
panelists in the traditional manner.
[Applause]
