# Transcript: (Un)leashed energy ## Description Dana Drábová will answer these and many other questions straightforwardly and without unnecessary embellishments. Who is Dana Drábová? Dana Drábová is a Czech nuclear physicist and a local and regional politician. Since 1999, she has been the chairwoman of the State Office for Nuclear Safety. Since 2010, she has also served as deputy mayor of Pyšely, and from 2016 to 2017, she was a councilor of the Central Bohemian Region. ## Transcript **[00:00:00]** Hello and good day, my name is Honza Mašek and I would like to welcome you to another Brain&Breakfast. **[00:00:23]** The intro surely revealed what we started, I'll just quickly summarize. **[00:00:27]** So we are really looking forward to being able to meet live again. **[00:00:30]** Hopefully at some in-person breakfast. **[00:00:33]** So we will be broadcasting to libraries again, hopefully to schools, and of course to companies. **[00:00:38]** So I'm really looking forward to it. **[00:00:40]** Brain&Breakfast is generally about sharing, about talking about these things, it's about inspiration. **[00:00:47]** And its format is basically 60 minutes of presentation and 30 minutes for your questions. **[00:00:55]** And I would ask you to take your mobile phones **[00:01:00]** and go to www.slajdu.com hashtag Brain **[00:01:10]** or directly on the EDUtéka platform under the broadcast, you can ask questions right away. **[00:01:17]** And I want to ask you the first question right now, which is whether this is your first breakfast. **[00:01:26]** And I'll ask Roži, and we already have about 123 people. **[00:01:31]** I always imagine it like a full auditorium, which is nice. **[00:01:36]** And many people haven't voted yet. **[00:01:38]** So I'm very happy that usually about half the people say they haven't been to a breakfast before, **[00:01:42]** so our audience is nicely expanding. **[00:01:48]** So I'll leave it open for a moment longer, but we'll continue with the presentation soon. **[00:01:54]** And I am very happy to welcome Mrs. Dana Drábová. **[00:02:01]** Mrs. Dana, please join us. **[00:02:03]** Good day. **[00:02:06]** I will hand you the symbolic baton. **[00:02:08]** Thank you. **[00:02:10]** What can I say, you are a person whose whole life has been connected with nuclear energy. **[00:02:19]** And I am very happy that you will tell us about it today. **[00:02:23]** So I won't take up your time, I'll leave you here and listen carefully, then I'll return for questions. **[00:02:29]** So it's yours now. Thank you. **[00:02:35]** Once again, good day to everyone. **[00:02:39]** Unfortunately, today we will be talking remotely, but that's the world we live in and we have to, **[00:02:46]** even if we don't like it sometimes, adapt to the world, **[00:02:51]** because the world adapts to us very reluctantly, even though we try hard. **[00:02:58]** Today we will talk about energy and energetics, **[00:03:03]** and we will try to touch on some questions, **[00:03:09]** without claiming that we will find answers to them, **[00:03:14]** which increasingly circulate through our media space, **[00:03:21]** the social media space, and are surrounded by myths, **[00:03:28]** which we need to somehow deal with. **[00:03:35]** So let's try to say something about the phenomenon of energy and energetics, **[00:03:45]** which is the way humans obtain energy for their ever-growing needs. **[00:03:54]** We won't focus only on nuclear energy, **[00:03:59]** even though a significant part of my talk will be devoted to it. **[00:04:04]** But let's start by trying to describe what energy actually is. **[00:04:17]** It's interesting that in our universe everything is made of matter and energy, **[00:04:24]** everything is a combination of matter and energy, but we can't define energy well. **[00:04:31]** We might remember the classic definition from high school, **[00:04:37]** that energy is the ability to do work, but that's very limited. **[00:04:44]** It hardly captures the importance of energy for everything around us and for ourselves. **[00:04:53]** We realize that the full meaning of the simple statement **[00:05:00]** the ability to do work is shifted, **[00:05:06]** because it's not just mechanical effort. **[00:05:10]** Energy allows us to change things. **[00:05:17]** Change location, speed, temperature, composition of matter in everything, **[00:05:23]** from the micro world to the universe. **[00:05:28]** Therefore, to change the world around us, **[00:05:32]** and as I said, we would like to do that, we fundamentally need energy. **[00:05:37]** Energy is a very scarce resource because without enough energy **[00:05:42]** we can forget about staying alive. **[00:05:46]** Our own metabolism constantly transforms **[00:05:50]** various forms of energy. **[00:05:54]** Without energy, sooner or later we can forget about **[00:05:58]** drinking clean water, eating, **[00:06:02]** warming ourselves if needed, **[00:06:06]** or getting around. **[00:06:10]** The energy we must get from food **[00:06:14]** provides us with healthcare, **[00:06:18]** and ensures at least basic safety. **[00:06:22]** All of this critically depends on having energy available **[00:06:26]** in sufficient quantity, **[00:06:30]** in a suitable form, and that we can also afford it. **[00:06:34]** How important is energy **[00:06:38]** and its various sources for the civilization **[00:06:42]** in which we have grown accustomed to living very comfortably? **[00:06:46]** We can look at the development **[00:06:50]** of the need for different energy sources **[00:06:54]** over the last, say, 150 years. **[00:06:58]** We see that even in the mid-19th century, **[00:07:02]** practically all of our global annual **[00:07:06]** energy consumption was covered by burning biomass. **[00:07:10]** And we see that compared to today, **[00:07:14]** the global human consumption of energy sources **[00:07:18]** was very basic. **[00:07:22]** Basic basic basic basic basic basic basic **[00:07:26]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:07:30]** basic basic basic basic basic basic **[00:07:34]** basic basic basic basic basic basic **[00:07:38]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:07:42]** basic basic basic basic basic basic **[00:07:46]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:07:50]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:07:54]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:07:58]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:02]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:06]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:10]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:14]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:18]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:22]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:26]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:30]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:34]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:38]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:42]** basic basic basic basic **[00:08:46]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:50]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:54]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:08:58]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:02]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:06]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:10]** basic basic basic basic **[00:09:14]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:18]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:22]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:26]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:30]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:34]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:38]** basic basic basic basic **[00:09:42]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:46]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:50]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:54]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:09:58]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:10:02]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:10:06]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:10:10]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:10:14]** basic basic basic basic basic **[00:10:00]** and fossil fuels. Today, we tend to dislike and despise them, **[00:10:07]** but our civilization over the last two hundred years has been built on them. **[00:10:15]** Energy is increasingly at the center of tension between a growing population, **[00:10:22]** social responsibility, and the technologies we have available, **[00:10:29]** to supply energy for the ever-growing needs of humanity mentioned earlier. **[00:10:40]** In fact, in that picture where we showed **[00:10:45]** how energy consumption has evolved over nearly two hundred years, **[00:10:53]** the increasing availability of energy is closely linked to the rising quality of life, **[00:11:03]** and since the beginning of the 20th century, the number of people on Earth has started to increase almost exponentially, **[00:11:12]** hopefully it won't turn fully exponential, but it is growing. **[00:11:18]** At the start of the 20th century, the Earth was inhabited by just over a billion people, **[00:11:23]** today there are almost 8 billion of us, with an annual growth rate of 1.3%, **[00:11:28]** which may not seem like much at first glance, but it means **[00:11:34]** that every year 80 million people are added, equivalent to a new Germany, **[00:11:40]** and every 12 years the population increases by a billion. **[00:11:49]** There are major inequalities between different parts of the world, **[00:11:57]** in terms of quality of life. Several figures show **[00:12:06]** that around two billion people, **[00:12:15]** in terms of access to energy resources, still live at the level **[00:12:21]** of the first farmers ten thousand years BC, **[00:12:25]** because for cooking and heating they have no other energy source **[00:12:31]** than burning biomass, which may sound very appealing today **[00:12:41]** considering biomass is a renewable resource. **[00:12:45]** On the other hand, these people are so poor **[00:12:49]** that they cannot afford to use quality stoves for burning biomass, **[00:12:54]** and burning biomass results for them in **[00:13:00]** a number of very unpleasant issues in terms of **[00:13:06]** What is worrying is that the number of people **[00:13:12]** without access to safe drinking water is still growing. **[00:13:15]** Today, there are about 1.5 billion, and this number will increase. **[00:13:21]** Unfortunately, it is expected that by 2050 it could be **[00:13:28]** as many as 3.5 billion people. The number of people **[00:13:34]** without access to electricity is decreasing. In 2018, **[00:13:40]** it fell below 1 billion for the first time. We see that ensuring **[00:13:47]** at least basic equal access to living standards **[00:13:58]** and the quality of life we are normally used to **[00:14:02]** and consider it a fundamental human right, **[00:14:06]** is a very difficult task, and as it will affect us, **[00:14:10]** it will become increasingly difficult. I already mentioned **[00:14:14]** that civilization as we know it was created **[00:14:18]** by fossil fuels, and it is naive to believe **[00:14:24]** that we can significantly get rid of fossil fuels quickly. **[00:14:31]** Although many countries in the world are trying quite intensively, **[00:14:39]** our energy needs are still covered by fossil fuels, **[00:14:46]** that is oil, coal, and natural gas, at least 75%. **[00:14:54]** This share is at least being stabilized, **[00:14:59]** but it is definitely not significantly decreasing. **[00:15:05]** How humans learn to use energy sources **[00:15:09]** is a long-term matter. The idea **[00:15:14]** that we could transform energy within a few years **[00:15:20]** is naive. Just consider **[00:15:23]** that from the moment humans learned to make and maintain fire **[00:15:32]** and use fire for cooking and heating, **[00:15:37]** until they were able to use it in industry, **[00:15:41]** many millions of years passed. **[00:15:47]** So this idea **[00:15:54]** that we can transform energy in a matter of years **[00:15:59]** does not really meet reality. **[00:16:05]** Moreover, it turns out that no combination of the traditional sources **[00:16:12]** we have had since the industrial revolution, **[00:16:18]** meaning fossil fuels, hydropower, and nuclear energy, **[00:16:27]** and new energy sources, especially solar energy, **[00:16:33]** directly used for electricity production and wind energy, **[00:16:38]** can ensure the kind of growth in the long term **[00:16:44]** that we have been used to since World War II. **[00:16:48]** We simply do not know how to do that yet. **[00:16:55]** And maybe, and this is for your consideration, **[00:16:58]** it is not advisable to try too hard at it long-term, **[00:17:05]** because the resources of this planet, no matter what anyone says, **[00:17:10]** are finite, they are limited. **[00:17:14]** These are not messages that are easy to hear, **[00:17:17]** but it is good to realize that we have a problem here, **[00:17:22]** because admitting the problem is the first step to solving it. **[00:17:28]** Now we will get to nuclear energy. **[00:17:33]** It can be said that, as Albert Einstein already formulated in his **[00:17:40]** Brilliantly simple, the genius equation E equals mc squared, **[00:17:46]** to get energy, we have to convert matter into it somehow. **[00:17:52]** In significant amounts, we can obtain energy by converting matter **[00:17:57]** only through nuclear reactions. **[00:18:01]** So it can be said that nuclear energy in our universe, **[00:18:06]** which consists of atoms, molecules, and more complex systems, **[00:18:15]** is the primal source of all other forms of energy. **[00:18:23]** So energy in significant amounts arises because **[00:18:31]** we fuse two light nuclei; here we have the essence of solar radiation energy, **[00:18:37]** which reaches Earth because this energy comes from nuclear fusion on the Sun, **[00:18:43]** or we split one heavy nucleus—nuclear fission, **[00:18:48]** which we use in nuclear power plants. **[00:18:52]** We can compare and show why it is said **[00:18:57]** that nuclear energy is a million times more concentrated fire. **[00:19:03]** When splitting one uranium-235 nucleus, about 210 million electronvolts are released, **[00:19:14]** which, as we can see, is about 100 million times more **[00:19:23]** than is released in a typical chemical reaction, **[00:19:28]** such as combustion, meaning oxidation. **[00:19:33]** A million times more concentrated fire. **[00:19:36]** When the fundamental discoveries were made and completed in the first half of the 20th century, **[00:19:45]** especially in the 1930s, **[00:19:48]** they enabled the idea that we could somehow harness nuclear energy. **[00:19:53]** Let's just recall. **[00:19:58]** That in 1932, **[00:20:00]** James Chadwick discovered the neutron, **[00:20:05]** a very basic particle, **[00:20:09]** which made it possible to even consider splitting heavy atomic nuclei. **[00:20:16]** In 1939, a team around Otto Hahn **[00:20:21]** described the possibility of a chain fission reaction. **[00:20:27]** In 1942, Enrico Fermi, **[00:20:32]** on behalf of the United States government, **[00:20:36]** built with his team the first man-controlled nuclear reactor. **[00:20:42]** We said nuclear energy is a million times more concentrated fire. **[00:20:52]** Therefore, these discoveries initially led **[00:20:58]** to the possibility of creating a million times more powerful explosive. **[00:21:04]** Keep in mind this happened at the dawn of World War II **[00:21:10]** or during it. **[00:21:16]** Fermi was successful; he and his team built **[00:21:18]** and successfully tested the great-grandfather of all nuclear reactors, **[00:21:27]** that operate around the world. **[00:21:30]** Unfortunately, I think that, unfortunately, **[00:21:36]** he was successful in being at the start of obtaining material **[00:21:42]** for American nuclear bombs. **[00:21:45]** And thus at the beginning of the path to the mentioned nuclear explosive. **[00:21:52]** However, we will not focus on, except for one small digression, **[00:21:59]** which I will make shortly, the dark side of nuclear energy, **[00:22:06]** meaning nuclear bombs. **[00:22:09]** We will focus on the path that was taken **[00:22:11]** in the 1950s and was initiated **[00:22:18]** by American President Dwight Eisenhower with his speech **[00:22:22]** at the United Nations General Assembly. **[00:22:25]** The speech was called Atoms for Peace **[00:22:28]** and dealt with the possibility of using the large amount of heat, **[00:22:33]** generated by the nuclear fission chain reaction, **[00:22:37]** as a source for electricity production. **[00:22:41]** This path was successfully taken. **[00:22:45]** Today, 444 nuclear reactors are in operation, **[00:22:51]** covering about 11% of the world's electricity consumption. **[00:22:58]** Another 52 reactors are under construction. **[00:23:02]** I should also note that the number of countries **[00:23:06]** operating nuclear power plants is not very large. **[00:23:09]** There are 33 today. **[00:23:13]** And why are there so few so far? **[00:23:17]** Because having nuclear energy, **[00:23:20]** operating it safely and reliably, **[00:23:23]** is not a simple matter **[00:23:26]** and requires a truly developed infrastructure, **[00:23:31]** including science and research, **[00:23:35]** advanced industry, and advanced state administration. **[00:23:39]** So it is somewhat prestigious **[00:23:45]** that the Czech Republic belongs to this club **[00:23:49]** and successfully, safely, and reliably operates 6 nuclear reactors. **[00:23:55]** The pace of building new reactors **[00:23:59]** and the overall development of nuclear energy **[00:24:02]** has shifted since the beginning of the 21st century. **[00:24:06]** Traditionally, the drivers of nuclear energy development **[00:24:13]** were Europe and North America. **[00:24:17]** Today, it is South and Southeast Asia, **[00:24:21]** especially China, South Korea, **[00:24:26]** India, and we must not forget also **[00:24:32]** the country that is only partially Asian, that is Russia. **[00:24:37]** There are few topics as controversial, **[00:24:46]** as nuclear energy. **[00:24:52]** The debate about nuclear energy **[00:24:56]** reliably sparks quite intense emotions and passions. **[00:25:04]** Partly, this is due to how we are constructed, **[00:25:11]** how our brain is constructed. **[00:25:15]** There is a conflict between the left and right brain hemispheres. **[00:25:20]** The left, focused on analytical thinking, logic, science, facts, data, numbers, **[00:25:29]** very often loses to the right hemisphere, **[00:25:35]** which works with intuition, is focused on art, **[00:25:42]** emotions, imagination, and the like. **[00:25:48]** The symbolic part associated with nuclear energy, **[00:25:53]** with nuclear power, is processed by the right hemisphere. **[00:26:02]** So the right hemisphere sends us signals that **[00:26:09]** we have become like a sorcerer's apprentice, **[00:26:13]** because we have looked into the microworld **[00:26:16]** and are beginning to learn to use the forces that hold atomic nuclei together. **[00:26:23]** So we have committed something improper, **[00:26:28]** at least in symbolic perception. **[00:26:31]** The left hemisphere tells us our knowledge is advancing **[00:26:35]** and therefore we better understand how the universe works, **[00:26:41]** how it works even in the microworld. **[00:26:44]** And thus the boundaries of our possibilities are expanding. **[00:26:48]** Our invention, our ability to learn and work with facts, **[00:26:55]** has, throughout the entire time humans and their early ancestors, **[00:27:02]** as we said, for several million years, began to function, **[00:27:06]** allowed us to reach the peak of what living systems can do and how they can understand the world around them. **[00:27:13]** Unfortunately, also how they can, with their ever-growing abilities, **[00:27:24]** but also appetite, change and plunder it. **[00:27:33]** People became acquainted with nuclear energy through its mentioned military use. **[00:27:38]** So nuclear energy was tainted **[00:27:49]** in the right hemisphere by fear of apocalypse. **[00:27:56]** And this taint will linger for a long time, **[00:28:01]** because the possibility of military misuse will always exist. **[00:28:08]** After all, we see it in countries that want to join the club **[00:28:14]** that owns nuclear weapons. **[00:28:21]** Nuclear weapons have been used in combat only in two cases **[00:28:35]** and everyone is doing everything to keep it that way. **[00:28:39]** Hiro, Shimmy, Mnaka, Saki in 1945. **[00:28:44]** Their role is controversial. **[00:28:46]** They certainly helped end World War II in Asia, **[00:28:55]** they certainly caused great loss of life, **[00:29:00]** but today no one can responsibly say, **[00:29:04]** how many lives were saved by their use. **[00:29:09]** The role of nuclear weapons is controversial even today **[00:29:14]** and was controversial throughout the Cold War, **[00:29:20]** because nuclear powers created so many and such powerful nuclear weapons, **[00:29:30]** that these weapons could destroy the entire planet several times over. **[00:29:37]** Therefore, it was clear that no country could seriously consider **[00:29:42]** using such a weapon. **[00:29:45]** Not because they had any, I would say, ethical reasons, **[00:29:57]** but simply because once a country uses it, **[00:30:00]** the only country that has the weapon can be sure it will be used in retaliation. **[00:30:07]** So mutually assured destruction through nuclear weapons may have actually saved **[00:30:16]** this planet from a large-scale global conflict. **[00:30:22]** The fact that it all started with military use also involved considerable effort **[00:30:39]** to protect information regarding nuclear technologies, even those used peacefully. **[00:30:45]** Therefore, laypeople feel that this knowledge is reserved only for the chosen few, **[00:30:53]** but that is not the case. If we try honestly, we can understand nuclear technologies **[00:31:01]** very well and recognize their benefits and risks. **[00:31:06]** Nuclear power plants are often presented as something against nature, **[00:31:16]** something that is not ecological. But let's look at some data, **[00:31:26]** some facts comparing nuclear energy with other ways **[00:31:36]** we generate electricity. The first is material demand. **[00:31:46]** We ask how many different raw materials are needed to produce one terawatt-hour **[00:31:56]** of electricity. By the way, the Czech Republic produces about **[00:32:02]** 80 terawatt-hours of electricity annually. Worldwide, the Czech Republic is a dwarf, **[00:32:09]** with about 26,500 terawatt-hours globally. But let's return to material demand. **[00:32:19]** We see that to produce one unit of electricity, for example, solar power plants **[00:32:31]** require a lot of materials like cement, glass, steel, and of course others, **[00:32:45]** especially rare metals and rare earth metals. We see that in terms of concrete consumption, **[00:32:54]** hydroelectric plants lead by far, but wind power plants are not far behind. **[00:33:01]** When we compare this to what is needed for the same production **[00:33:11]** in a nuclear power plant, the claim that nuclear power plants are pushed by the concrete and steel lobby **[00:33:18]** seems laughable when looking at the statistics. When I mentioned that the planet's resources are limited, **[00:33:26]** one limitation also comes from the fact that the surface suitable **[00:33:42]** The area used for human activities is really not the largest. Therefore, from the perspective of electricity production, **[00:33:52]** we also need to consider how much surface area is occupied by a given power plant. **[00:34:02]** Fossil fuel power plants—coal, gas, and even nuclear—occupy roughly a few square kilometers **[00:34:09]** to produce the same amount of electricity. **[00:34:17]** Solar power plants require hundreds of square kilometers for that amount of electricity. **[00:34:27]** We are talking about a power plant with an installed capacity of a thousand megawatts. **[00:34:34]** Due to necessary spacing, wind power plants are very demanding in this regard, **[00:34:42]** needing about 700 square kilometers for an installed capacity of a thousand megawatts. **[00:34:52]** From the images above, it may seem that these are areas not very suitable for other human activities. **[00:34:59]** So we don't have to worry as much about land use there. But because these places **[00:35:05]** are not suitable for other human activities, we face the problem of how to transport electricity **[00:35:12]** produced in these locations to human settlements. **[00:35:17]** Just a few numbers to illustrate this. The total surface area of planet Earth is 510 million square kilometers, **[00:35:23]** but of that, the land area—because we still don't feel comfortable with the aquatic world— **[00:35:33]** is about 145 million square kilometers. However, from that, forests, deserts, tundras, mountains, and inland water bodies, **[00:35:43]** which are not fully usable for people, **[00:35:51]** account for 50 million square kilometers. Then we have forests, steppes, savannas, eroded soil, **[00:35:58]** and settlements, which also are not very suitable for further use, except in specific cases. **[00:36:05]** And then there is agriculturally usable land. Here, we have about 1,300 square meters per person, **[00:36:13]** which really isn't much. Therefore, considering where to build land-intensive power plants is quite a challenge. **[00:36:22]** One of the things that today, and I think rightly, arouses great interest, **[00:36:39]** that humans influence climate change. The question is how much. **[00:36:50]** Of course, there are scholarly debates about this, but on the other hand, **[00:37:00]** the fact remains that human impact on the climate is undeniable. **[00:37:08]** Therefore, we are interested in greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production. **[00:37:18]** We see that the options we have for electricity production can be divided into two groups of sources. **[00:37:28]** One group has relatively high greenhouse gas emissions, **[00:37:35]** and the other is a large group of so-called low-emission sources. **[00:37:43]** By far the worst in terms of emissions are coal power plants. **[00:37:49]** In Europe, there is increasing talk about switching to natural gas as a transitional technology **[00:37:57]** to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. **[00:38:04]** Gas is by no means a low-emission source. Yes, during combustion in the power plant, **[00:38:11]** emissions are about half those of coal plants, but if we account for methane leaks **[00:38:19]** during extraction and transport, gas is actually worse for the atmosphere than coal. **[00:38:27]** Then we have the group of low-emission sources, which include nuclear, hydro, wind, and photovoltaic power plants, **[00:38:35]** which can be considered comparable in terms of emissions. **[00:39:12]** It might be interesting to compare two countries that both have fairly ambitious plans **[00:39:27]** to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These are France and Germany. **[00:39:34]** But we see that Germany, represented by the red part of the graph, **[00:39:42]** still has a long way to go in its annual greenhouse gas emissions. **[00:39:53]** France is the lower dark curve. **[00:40:00]** Since it produces about 70 to 75% of its electricity from nuclear power plants, **[00:40:11]** it performs very well in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production. **[00:40:20]** Whether it can maintain this is also a question, **[00:40:24]** because France is starting to face problems with aging nuclear power plants and with **[00:40:31]** how to replace its fleet of 56 nuclear reactors. **[00:40:38]** It might also be interesting to look at this kind of, **[00:40:42]** seemingly quite complex picture, which shows us **[00:40:48]** the amount of electricity supplied each hour throughout the year, **[00:40:56]** and on the y-axis we have CO2 emissions per kWh produced in that particular hour. **[00:41:09]** We see several groups of countries. **[00:41:12]** By far the cleanest country from this perspective is Norway, **[00:41:20]** which produces almost 90% of its electricity from hydropower plants. **[00:41:28]** Sweden is interesting, **[00:41:31]** a combination of nuclear and hydropower with some fossil fuel supplements. **[00:41:43]** We see France at a similar level to Sweden, **[00:41:49]** with a predominance of nuclear power. **[00:41:56]** We see Germany, where it’s more complicated, **[00:41:58]** and emissions vary greatly throughout the year during times **[00:42:05]** when solar and wind renewable sources can be used intensively. **[00:42:14]** My Polish friends will forgive me for calling Poland the piglet of Europe from this perspective, **[00:42:20]** because Poland produces 80% of its electricity in coal power plants, **[00:42:28]** and thus its emissions are as we see here. **[00:42:38]** Of course, nuclear energy and nuclear power plants **[00:42:45]** are perceived in our hemisphere also through the lens of, **[00:42:53]** although very unlikely, still possible serious accidents **[00:43:00]** or even disasters involving extensive radiation leaks into the environment. **[00:43:09]** In the 66 or 67 years that nuclear power plants have been with us, **[00:43:24]** there have been three such accidents, each different, each providing major lessons, **[00:43:31]** and each influencing the further development of nuclear energy. **[00:43:37]** The image shows how, starting from 1954, **[00:43:45]** when the first nuclear power plant was launched in then Soviet Obninsk, **[00:43:53]** the number of operating nuclear units gradually changed, **[00:43:59]** with a very dynamic increase after 1970 as a response to the first oil crisis, **[00:44:06]** and around 1990 a gradual stabilization at about 440 nuclear units. **[00:44:16]** It also shows milestones related to accidents and disasters. **[00:44:22]** The first one, My Island in 1979, is a reference for us in that **[00:44:30]** it showed that the most widespread type of reactors in the world, **[00:44:37]** pressurized water reactors, cooled and moderated by light water, **[00:44:42]** is truly an excellent design in terms of robustness and safety. **[00:44:58]** My Island showed that when a power plant is well built, **[00:45:06]** well designed, with good safety systems, **[00:45:13]** and operated by knowledgeable, capable people who don't panic, **[00:45:19]** even when something very unpleasant happens, **[00:45:23]** even a major fuel disruption in a single reactor. **[00:45:28]** By the way, at My Island, about as much fuel was damaged **[00:45:35]** as in the Chernobyl accident, but under completely different conditions. **[00:45:40]** This project, operated by skilled personnel, **[00:45:48]** was able to handle the accident in the way **[00:45:50]** that every accident should be handled. **[00:45:55]** That means damaged equipment, damage worth a billion dollars at the time, **[00:46:02]** but no impact on people or the surrounding area of the plant. **[00:46:07]** It is worth noting that, unlike other suppliers, **[00:46:12]** our operated plants and those planned **[00:46:16]** will belong to the family of pressurized water reactors, **[00:46:20]** cooled and moderated by light water. **[00:46:23]** A completely different reference scenario is the Chernobyl accident of 1986. **[00:46:31]** We commemorated its 35th anniversary this year. **[00:46:37]** It remains the worst imaginable scenario of what can happen at a single plant. **[00:46:40]** Still, and everyone continues to do everything to keep it that way, **[00:46:45]** it is the only nuclear power plant accident that directly caused deaths. **[00:46:50]** It remains the accident that brought probably the greatest lessons to the nuclear world, **[00:46:59]** to the nuclear industry, **[00:47:06]** because industry, not only nuclear, **[00:47:11]** perhaps unfortunately learns best **[00:47:16]** and takes the most effective measures in response to accidents and disasters. **[00:47:22]** The fact that Chernobyl was a major warning **[00:47:30]** and remains a major warning and lesson, **[00:47:35]** was shown, for example, by the fact that 25 years after Chernobyl, **[00:47:39]** no significant incidents occurred at operating nuclear units. **[00:47:44]** Until nature showed us in 2011 **[00:47:51]** that its forces will always be stronger than ours, **[00:47:55]** and as a result of an earthquake and subsequent tsunami, **[00:48:00]** the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, was destroyed. **[00:48:06]** Three of the six units of this plant **[00:48:19]** went through complete fuel meltdown in the reactor's active zone, **[00:48:23]** unfortunately followed by a fairly massive radiation leak around the power plant. **[00:48:31]** It is worth noting, however, that the leak from the three units **[00:48:35]** was roughly one-fifth, **[00:48:41]** due to the different design of that power plant and different safety systems, **[00:48:48]** compared to the leak from a single Chernobyl unit. **[00:48:53]** It is important to note that as a result of radiation exposure **[00:48:59]** from the Fukushima accident, no one died. **[00:49:06]** Although the symbolism, especially of the Chernobyl accident, is very strong, **[00:49:14]** if we compare, this is done by the Swiss Paul Scherrer Institute, **[00:49:22]** which tracks death statistics from serious accidents in the energy sector, **[00:49:29]** if we compare different methods of electricity production **[00:49:35]** in terms of deaths per unit of electricity produced, **[00:49:42]** here we have gigawatt-year, **[00:49:44]** we see, as we might expect, coal leads, **[00:49:49]** because the entire life cycle is counted, including miner deaths during extraction. **[00:49:56]** We might be surprised by hydro. **[00:50:00]** Because we would implicitly and symbolically consider hydroelectric plants **[00:50:08]** to be very safe. I must say, the not-so-good hydroelectric statistics **[00:50:18]** in this chart are caused by a single disaster, **[00:50:23]** the Banqiao dam failure in China in 1976, **[00:50:30]** which resulted in nearly 200,000 direct or indirect deaths. **[00:50:37]** Direct deaths by drowning and collateral deaths from starvation caused by the dam failure. **[00:50:47]** And we see that despite everything happening with nuclear power plants in our right hemisphere, **[00:50:49]** the statistics for nuclear power plants are excellent. **[00:50:59]** And that includes Chernobyl and also the Fukushima zero deaths. **[00:51:04]** This year, as I mentioned, we commemorated the 35th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, **[00:51:14]** and estimates of how many victims from radiation exposure we can expect from Chernobyl **[00:51:23]** were revisited again. **[00:51:37]** The direct victims who actually died from acute radiation, **[00:51:39]** meaning radiation sickness, radiation burns, and possibly thyroid cancer, **[00:51:46]** are today fewer than 100. **[00:51:56]** But acute radiation effects are not the only ones. **[00:52:01]** Radiation belongs to a family of factors that can cause cancer by altering information in cells, **[00:52:07]** in DNA. **[00:52:16]** Therefore, we still face the fact that as a result of the Chernobyl accident, **[00:52:20]** an unspecified but in some sources very high number of people will die from induced cancer diseases within 70 years after the accident. **[00:52:35]** A reasonable, well-epidemiologically supported estimate is that within 70 years after Chernobyl, **[00:52:47]** between 10,000 and 20,000 people will die from additional cancer diseases. **[00:53:05]** Which is something between 125 and 250 deaths per year. **[00:53:13]** For context, unfortunately in the Czech Republic, even with a high level of healthcare, oncology care **[00:53:24]** still about 28,000 people die annually. Every year. **[00:53:30]** And it has nothing to do with Chernobyl at all. **[00:53:34]** There are also estimates for Chernobyl, very controversial, like 60,000 victims over 70 years, **[00:53:42]** but also crazy ones, like a million victims over 70 years, which have no scientific basis whatsoever. **[00:53:52]** And yet, even if that crazy estimate were true, and I don’t want this to sound cynical, **[00:53:59]** we get about 12,500 victims per year. **[00:54:05]** Still, compare that to the number that unfortunately occurs annually in the Czech Republic. **[00:54:20]** It’s probably also good to say that these numbers apply to areas with higher contamination levels, **[00:54:29]** meaning Ukraine, Belarus, and parts, especially the Bryansk region, of Russia. **[00:54:36]** Nowhere else in the Chernobyl fallout area does it make real sense to consider subsequent cancer cases. **[00:54:45]** And again for context, let’s compare annual death counts worldwide from various causes. **[00:54:58]** We see that although one accident is always a disaster that impacts people’s lives, **[00:55:09]** and has huge economic consequences, in terms of death toll, **[00:55:22]** its significance and the worst imaginable Chernobyl scenario is rather minor. **[00:55:30]** So those were accidents. What about health risks during normal power plant operation? **[00:55:38]** We see here in terms of deaths per terawatt-hour produced, **[00:55:47]** mainly due to respiratory diseases, or in coal plants due to coal mining, **[00:55:58]** coal plants lead by far, followed by other fossil fuels. **[00:56:05]** And again, we see that nuclear power plants together with renewables **[00:56:12]** belong to the statistics with very good results. **[00:56:21]** It might be interesting to recall that our electricity production mix **[00:56:28]** in the Czech Republic, still with about half coal power plants, **[00:56:37]** means roughly 550 deaths annually mainly due to respiratory diseases. **[00:56:45]** That’s a number worth keeping in mind as well. **[00:56:54]** What is perceived as the Achilles' heel, and where the right hemisphere works a lot, **[00:57:01]** is the question of how we handle radioactive waste. **[00:57:11]** Radioactive waste certainly requires special handling. **[00:57:20]** It needs to be separated from humans and the environment. **[00:57:27]** In the case of spent nuclear fuel, it needs to be separated from humans and the environment **[00:57:35]** for a very long time by very thorough barriers. **[00:57:42]** On the other hand, very thorough barriers are provided by nature itself, **[00:57:50]** because storing spent nuclear fuel in a deep repository means **[00:57:58]** the probability that radionuclides would ever reach the surface **[00:58:05]** or near the earth’s surface is very low. **[00:58:11]** The radionuclides contained in spent fuel as fission products, **[00:58:18]** which cause the greatest concern, **[00:58:23]** because they have very long half-lives, **[00:58:28]** also have very low mobility. **[00:58:36]** They really don't want to move from the place where they are deposited. **[00:58:42]** Therefore, the system of geological and so-called engineering barriers **[00:58:48]** practically excludes the possibility that they would get where they shouldn't. **[00:58:53]** I sometimes say cynically that when the earth moves, **[00:58:58]** if the spent nuclear fuel from the deep repository **[00:59:05]** could threaten people, the earth's movement would be such that **[00:59:12]** there would actually be no one left to care. **[00:59:19]** As I said, it's a bit cynical, but on the other hand, **[00:59:23]** it illustrates the safety of deep storage, **[00:59:28]** because the site is chosen so that there is no risk **[00:59:34]** of the earth's structures moving in such a way. **[00:59:45]** One more thing I want to mention about radioactive waste, **[00:59:50]** specifically spent fuel. Compared to **[00:59:55]** other wastes that sooner or later will overwhelm us, **[01:00:00]** very little is produced. So it can be stored **[01:00:05]** safely in a relatively **[01:00:10]** small area or in relatively small buildings **[01:00:15]** and later moved to the deep repository. **[01:00:20]** This is not the case with other **[01:00:25]** types of waste that should concern us much more. **[01:00:30]** For example, we see in the sea **[01:00:35]** newly forming islands of plastic and we have no idea what to do with them. **[01:00:40]** For nuclear waste, we have a solution. **[01:00:45]** To even consider that **[01:00:50]** nuclear energy will serve us **[01:00:55]** to cover our energy needs, **[01:01:00]** we have to try to do something about the conflict between facts **[01:01:05]** and symbols. **[01:01:10]** It's not easy because the right hemisphere controls us, **[01:01:15]** I would say, much more than the left. **[01:01:20]** But we can at least try to seek information, **[01:01:25]** distinguish between reality and prejudice, between facts and pseudofacts, **[01:01:30]** learn to understand and use probability, uncertainty, **[01:01:35]** and also understand that people around us are influenced by inherited symbols. **[01:01:40]** We see this today not only in the case of nuclear energy, nuclear power. **[01:01:47]** We see that we need all this in other situations, **[01:01:53]** which we couldn't even imagine two years ago we would face. **[01:01:59]** So we have a good reason to at least try. Why? **[01:02:05]** Because nuclear energy and its manifestations are everywhere, **[01:02:10]** they are part of our lives, whether we want it or not. **[01:02:13]** Whether we want it or not, at every moment of our lives we are exposed to radiation from various sources. **[01:02:20]** These sources are mostly natural, a result of peaceful evolution **[01:02:26]** and our planetary system over several billion years. **[01:02:33]** Radiation from natural sources is numerous, many times greater **[01:02:42]** than radiation from sources that we have learned to use thanks to Konrád Wilhelm Ringen's discovery. **[01:02:48]** That means the deliberate use of nuclear energy, **[01:02:55]** nuclear technologies. And we see that even in this deliberate use, **[01:03:01]** something we automatically and rightly consider beneficial leads sovereignly. **[01:03:06]** That means medical applications of nuclear technologies like radiology, **[01:03:12]** nuclear medicine. What stirs emotions, like the operation of nuclear power plants, **[01:03:18]** the consequences of nuclear power plant accidents, are only minor contributions **[01:03:24]** to our radiation exposure. For technologies used by humans, **[01:03:36]** many of which are risky, it holds that the technology itself is not dangerous. **[01:03:45]** I like to illustrate this with a photo I borrowed **[01:03:52]** from the aviation museum in Bern, where a tree stood in the path of Blériot's biplane. **[01:03:59]** There was a comment on it. **[01:04:03]** Aviation as such is not dangerous, but it will never forgive us **[01:04:08]** for recklessness, incompetence, or lack of attention. **[01:04:13]** If you add nuclear energy there, the same applies. **[01:04:19]** And it holds that nuclear energy, the forces that hold atomic nuclei together, **[01:04:27]** were here long before we appeared, **[01:04:33]** and will be here long after the last human, whether voluntarily **[01:04:40]** or involuntarily, leaves this planet. **[01:04:45]** And they will accompany us for the entire time we are here. **[01:04:53]** And they can serve us. Just like fire, nuclear energy **[01:04:57]** can be a good servant, and we can do everything to ensure **[01:05:03]** it does not become a bad master. And we will be together forever. **[01:05:08]** That's simply what physics says. Thank you for your attention. **[01:05:15]** Thank you very much indeed. Normally we would **[01:05:19]** wait a moment now because everyone would be applauding loudly, **[01:05:22]** so just imagine that. Thank you very much for the great lecture. **[01:05:28]** I might start because you built the whole thing, **[01:05:32]** the lecture about reason versus emotions. **[01:05:36]** And that it obviously doesn't only concern nuclear energy. **[01:05:40]** Is there some kind of remedy that could help us with this? **[01:05:47]** There is. But of course, there will be no cure, **[01:05:52]** no 100% effective remedy. It will require great patience. **[01:05:58]** But in many things, investment will help us, **[01:06:06]** not only financial, in education, in teaching, **[01:06:14]** which is focused not on memorizing, **[01:06:20]** but to be able to evaluate, to find relevant facts. **[01:06:26]** Today, it's a overused term, but critical thinking. **[01:06:31]** It's something that a child, a young person **[01:06:37]** should take away from the educational system. **[01:06:40]** Everything else can be learned later. **[01:06:43]** I feel like this is a long-term therapy. **[01:06:47]** It will never end. **[01:06:50]** I think we are a product of some kind of schooling. **[01:06:55]** Do you think it will take that long, that generations have to move forward? **[01:07:00]** Or are we capable too, because we broadcast to companies, **[01:07:04]** we mainly broadcast to the audience, but of course also to schools. **[01:07:08]** What are the aspects, besides watching Brain & Breakfast, **[01:07:12]** I actually feel that people who watch Brain & Breakfast **[01:07:16]** are already somehow in a bubble, **[01:07:19]** accepting critical thinking. **[01:07:22]** How to get out of that bubble? **[01:07:24]** That's a difficult question, especially in the age of social networks, **[01:07:32]** from which the term bubble actually comes. **[01:07:36]** Because the construction of social network algorithms is such **[01:07:40]** that they respond to our right hemisphere **[01:07:43]** and offer us what we like. **[01:07:45]** Simply put, what I look at is reflected in the algorithm of what is offered to me. **[01:07:50]** That means opinions that don't agree with me **[01:07:54]** are heavily filtered by Facebook. **[01:07:58]** And few people realize this algorithm. **[01:08:02]** And it's intentional, because the part of social networks that makes money is targeted this way. **[01:08:11]** And this creates a world where... **[01:08:14]** Yes, the term bubble is correct. **[01:08:22]** I mostly communicate with people who think like me. **[01:08:25]** But that's not the right way. **[01:08:30]** I want to engage in discussion. **[01:08:33]** Even if I hear opinions that don't agree with me. **[01:08:37]** And consider whether there is something to them, **[01:08:40]** find some sources for them and then lightly dismiss them. **[01:08:46]** Or say, well, I hadn't seen this aspect before **[01:08:51]** and it's worth thinking about more. **[01:08:57]** But today's way of communication doesn't really encourage this. **[01:09:02]** You touched on this from a slightly different angle. **[01:09:09]** Even if we had a live audience here, **[01:09:18]** So people will come who want to hear. **[01:09:22]** Something they expect to hear, if you know what I mean. **[01:09:28]** I understand. **[01:09:30]** Which creates again, even though it's a live bubble, **[01:09:34]** where beliefs are reinforced. **[01:09:38]** I think it's called Echo Chambers. **[01:09:42]** And coincidentally, you gave me a great lead-in, **[01:09:45]** because in the eighth month, Josef Holí from Semantic Vision will be speaking, **[01:09:52]** and he will describe this topic here. **[01:09:56]** I think that... **[01:09:58]** I'm promoting him. Today is good too. **[01:10:00]** About podcasts, I sometimes say cynically that anyone with two inches of nose hair makes a podcast, but there are many excellent ones, and one of the excellent interviewers in the network, **[01:10:13]** which Mr. Holí does with Saša Alvarová, you should check it out sometime. **[01:10:18]** So here you see a promotion, but it also proves that we are in that bubble, among other things, because we listen, I will move on to those questions, **[01:10:28]** there are many that came up on this topic, and just a reminder, if you want to ask, definitely use Slido. **[01:10:37]** How do you view the possible completion of the Dukovany nuclear power plant with regard to the price? **[01:10:42]** Voices are gradually growing that warn the estimated price is significantly underestimated. **[01:10:49]** The estimated price is based on what various bidders have offered in recent years for different projects around the world. **[01:11:05]** But the trap is that the final price will have little to do with the bid price if the investor cannot manage the project **[01:11:24]** and cannot pressure the supplier to maintain the bid price. **[01:11:30]** So guess how much it will cost. 160 billion is mentioned, okay. That's possible and roughly what all bidders offer. **[01:11:51]** The first trap is that it's an overnight cost. That means the cost of money is not included. No investor can invest overnight; they have to borrow. **[01:12:07]** The cost of money can increase the total investment, I don't want to say double it, but that's possible. **[01:12:17]** The second trap is that if the project can't be organized to meet the agreed schedule and gets delayed, it will also cost significantly more. **[01:12:35]** On the other hand, investing in a nuclear power plant is investing in a baseload source, which has not only a price but also value. **[01:12:52]** We said that without electricity we can hardly do anything. Very quickly. And we simply need that electricity. **[01:12:59]** And so far, in terms of our commitments to climate change and limiting human impact, **[01:13:11]** we don't have anything else but a combination of nuclear and renewable sources to make sense. **[01:13:18]** A side note: nuclear and renewable sources are not enemies. Definitely not. **[01:13:24]** That combination is what we should aim for, in my opinion. **[01:13:31]** But to conclude, how much it will cost certainly depends on the chosen supplier, but much more on us, **[01:13:43]** how well we can manage the project. **[01:13:46]** Can we manage it? **[01:13:48]** Well, that's difficult. **[01:13:50]** It's difficult, especially when we look at other infrastructure investments **[01:13:59]** and how we manage them. **[01:14:02]** I live near Prague, almost on the Sázava in Pišely, **[01:14:08]** so I have the dubious pleasure of traveling almost daily on the D1. **[01:14:15]** Fortunately, only to Mirošovice, where I leave it at exit three. **[01:14:21]** Exit three with desperately overloaded traffic, because the D3 in the Central Bohemian variant has been planned for a long time, **[01:14:29]** but it still doesn't even lead to breaking ground. **[01:14:33]** And how we are handling the reconstruction of the D1, that's probably not something to comment on. **[01:14:39]** But it just says something about the ability to manage large investments. **[01:14:50]** Thank you very much. **[01:14:53]** That's a question I wanted to ask anyway. **[01:14:56]** Do you think the future lies in decentralizing production to home power plants? **[01:15:01]** Partly yes. Partly yes. **[01:15:03]** Partly yes, especially for rural areas and small communities, **[01:15:09]** but it won't solve cities and industry. **[01:15:13]** So it will certainly have its place to some extent. **[01:15:16]** We recently happened to be in a discussion with some foreign people, **[01:15:22]** and they showed us nuclear fusion specifically in civilian, home environments. **[01:15:29]** Do you think it will head in that direction? **[01:15:31]** Nuclear fusion in a home environment. **[01:15:34]** A small reactor. **[01:15:36]** A small reactor is something a bit different because for sure, **[01:15:42]** in the coming decades it will be based on fission, not fusion. **[01:15:46]** But even so, as a home nuclear boiler, we can't imagine that, **[01:15:55]** it will always be something that serves, I don't know, **[01:16:04]** a smaller town—no offense—but Plzeň, for example, has big plans. **[01:16:15]** Setting energy production aside, there is a big challenge in energy storage. **[01:16:21]** Considering the strain on the grid, what are the options besides batteries, in your opinion? **[01:16:30]** Options that wouldn't have huge losses, **[01:16:39]** because every energy conversion back and forth means loss. **[01:16:44]** Perpetual motion machines don't exist. **[01:16:46]** We don't have many options. **[01:16:48]** We could still build some pumped-storage hydroelectric plant, **[01:16:52]** which is currently the most efficient method available. **[01:16:58]** There are high expectations, and I think rightly so, **[01:17:04]** and maybe even more than for electromobility, placed on hydrogen. **[01:17:10]** There is, after all, a question about electromobility. **[01:17:14]** Do you think the current push for electromobility **[01:17:17]** will have a real impact on the climate? **[01:17:25]** The phasing out, at least partially, of combustion engines, **[01:17:29]** it won't be fast and will have many unintended consequences. **[01:17:39]** Maybe a smaller impact on the climate globally, **[01:17:46]** I'm not an expert, so I might speculate a bit, **[01:17:50]** but I would say it will have a very significant effect where, **[01:17:56]** in my opinion, electric cars will sooner or later be widely used, **[01:18:02]** and that is in cities, because the microclimate in cities **[01:18:06]** and especially the air quality in cities is incredibly burdened by those combustion engines. **[01:18:14]** Could you compare the costs of supporting photovoltaics **[01:18:19]** with the costs of building a new nuclear block? **[01:18:22]** I heard something about five hundred billion in support for photovoltaic energy, **[01:18:27]** that's the viewer's question. **[01:18:29]** That's more. **[01:18:31]** But I don't think that the support for photovoltaics here, **[01:18:37]** unfortunately, what sometimes happens, **[01:18:41]** is that the support was intentionally reformed, to put it diplomatically, **[01:18:48]** and photovoltaics were ultimately harmed **[01:18:53]** more than was strictly necessary. **[01:18:56]** They even calculated something like 800 billion to a trillion. **[01:19:05]** Well, clearly, when we realize that currently **[01:19:12]** the installed capacity of photovoltaics is the same **[01:19:17]** as the installed capacity of two Temelín blocks. **[01:19:21]** 2000 megawatts photovoltaics, 2000 megawatts Temelín. **[01:19:25]** So photovoltaics with this installed capacity **[01:19:31]** cover about 3% of the annual electricity consumption, and Temelín, **[01:19:38]** something between 18 and 20%. **[01:19:41]** From this perspective, concentrated energy is always more advantageous. **[01:19:50]** But on the other hand, more demanding. **[01:20:00]** the current generation of nuclear reactors. **[01:20:02]** How do you see the use of spent fuel? **[01:20:05]** You already talked about it a bit. **[01:20:08]** The current generation of nuclear reactors **[01:20:11]** is still a transitional or bridging technology **[01:20:16]** to other fourth-generation reactor technologies **[01:20:20]** and to the fusion reactor you mentioned, **[01:20:23]** like gas as a bridging technology **[01:20:28]** for some countries. **[01:20:30]** It will be for us too, because if we want to get rid of coal, **[01:20:33]** we can't do it without gas. **[01:20:35]** There is no way. **[01:20:39]** Yes, the current generation of nuclear reactors **[01:20:43]** is already hitting its evolutionary limits **[01:20:47]** and therefore also economic limits. **[01:20:49]** That's true, because safety requirements are increasing. **[01:20:53]** Nuclear power plants have almost been torn down **[01:20:56]** and on the other hand, safety requirements are increasing, **[01:21:00]** which is a legitimate matter. **[01:21:04]** But if we are to continue using nuclear energy, **[01:21:11]** whether in the form of fission or nuclear fusion, **[01:21:17]** we need to test this bridging technology somehow. **[01:21:22]** So if I may say, **[01:21:26]** and this is my opinion regarding the Czech Republic, **[01:21:31]** building at least two more nuclear blocks of the current technology **[01:21:40]** is a good bridge to buy time **[01:21:45]** to search for more efficient options. **[01:21:49]** I can't help but ask you this, since I have the chance, **[01:21:53]** sitting right next to you. I actually wanted to ask, **[01:21:57]** all these technologies being discussed now are exponential. **[01:22:01]** That means we don't know what will be available in 20 years, whether in hydrogen **[01:22:06]** or elsewhere. Do you really think that investment **[01:22:12]** in nuclear is the right one? **[01:22:16]** From the state's perspective, there is no other choice, because the state can't say **[01:22:22]** I'll wait and see what happens in 20 years. The state, precisely because its role **[01:22:29]** is to provide people with things they can't secure themselves, **[01:22:34]** for example, to ensure that electricity is in the socket, with few exceptions, **[01:22:41]** must bet on certainty. And that certainty for our conditions **[01:22:48]** is a combination of renewables, nuclear, and gas. We have nothing else. **[01:22:54]** You helped me a bit, because when I was preparing, **[01:22:58]** I wanted to ask about gas sources. **[01:23:02]** When I heard some discussions about this technology, **[01:23:06]** one argument was that it would increase the price of energy. **[01:23:11]** How is it actually with the price? **[01:23:14]** A gas power plant is cheaper to build in terms of investment. **[01:23:20]** And it is also built in a shorter time, although the permitting processes **[01:23:27]** won't be much simpler than for a nuclear plant. **[01:23:33]** Especially considering that if you have to bring sufficient capacity coal to a place where it isn't yet, **[01:23:37]** you end up with linear construction. **[01:23:42]** And getting all the necessary permits in today's world **[01:23:45]** is really no walk in the park. **[01:23:50]** But what I want to say importantly is that the advantage of a nuclear power plant is its relatively low **[01:23:54]** and stable fuel costs. **[01:23:57]** If the price of uranium doubles, **[01:24:02]** the price per kWh from a nuclear plant increases by about 20%. **[01:24:05]** If the price of gas doubles, **[01:24:10]** the price per kWh from a gas power plant nearly doubles. **[01:24:28]** I understand. Thank you very much for that explanation. **[01:24:32]** There is a question about photovoltaics. **[01:24:35]** There is a question about whether deserts could be used. **[01:24:40]** Some studies show that only a small area could be used. **[01:24:45]** But there will definitely be more challenges. **[01:24:48]** We touched on this a bit when we talked about land use. **[01:24:55]** Deserts are usually located quite far from human settlements, **[01:25:00]** and what would people do there besides nomads? **[01:25:04]** And therefore, losses during electricity transmission, **[01:25:08]** is also something we still don't fully know how to solve. **[01:25:12]** Another thing is that deserts are probably more suitable **[01:25:20]** for so-called concentrated photovoltaic power plants, **[01:25:24]** where large mirrors concentrate heat, **[01:25:29]** heating a heat carrier, and then it works like a conventional power plant. **[01:25:34]** Some are suitable for photovoltaics. **[01:25:38]** But A, there is dust there. **[01:25:41]** But B, photovoltaics don't like high temperatures. **[01:25:45]** They like intense sunlight, but not high temperatures. **[01:25:50]** So the ideal place for photovoltaics is something like the Tibetan plateau. **[01:25:56]** But again, in terms of accessibility, it's the same issue. **[01:26:01]** I feel that what you said is actually true, **[01:26:05]** that it is the states' task to provide basic infrastructure. **[01:26:09]** There was a project ten or more years ago, **[01:26:14]** called Desertec, which explored the possibility **[01:26:20]** of bringing power from the Sahara to Europe. **[01:26:25]** But it ran into the difficulties I mentioned, **[01:26:30]** and also another issue: all of Africa suffers from electricity shortages, **[01:26:35]** so even if it succeeded, why would it send electricity to Europe? **[01:26:40]** I will start to close the questions now. **[01:26:45]** Of course, there are many, Simona and many others thank you very much. **[01:26:51]** She asks what is the source of your personal energy and thanks you for the great lecture. **[01:26:58]** Source of personal energy? **[01:27:03]** That's a really hard question to answer. I just live as best I can. **[01:27:08]** Ms. Dana, thank you very much. Thank you for taking the time for us. **[01:27:14]** I will ask, I still have a few slides left. **[01:27:19]** Good news for those of you who sent questions that weren't answered. **[01:27:24]** Ms. Dana and I agreed that, as usual, we will hold a discussion, **[01:27:29]** which will be sometime in mid-July, so be sure to follow **[01:27:34]** redbutton.edu or the Brain and Breakfast pages, where you will learn much more. **[01:27:39]** I would really like to ask you to rate the breakfast, **[01:27:44]** whether it's in the stream below, where we'll soon turn on the stars. **[01:27:50]** Five stars means I really liked it, one star means I didn't like it much, **[01:27:54]** so whether on your phone or from the broadcast you're watching, **[01:27:58]** please vote. Thank you very much. **[01:28:01]** We'll see if it worked, we'll check and leave it running there. **[01:28:08]** Mrs. Dana and I have already touched on this a bit. **[01:28:12]** Brain and Breakfast, the foundation, the core, is about **[01:28:16]** meeting and discussing topics together. **[01:28:20]** So we can start the discussion here, even after it ends, **[01:28:24]** but you can also do it with your close colleagues, **[01:28:28]** with someone you're watching with, not just fill out the questionnaire, **[01:28:32]** where we have some basic aha moments, but also really meet **[01:28:36]** and talk about what it gave you, or what you disagreed with, **[01:28:41]** and then maybe come back to the discussion we will organize. **[01:28:47]** One of the projects of the Red Button network, which also organizes Brain and Breakfast, **[01:28:53]** and the whole Red Button.edu, is the Book of the Month project, **[01:28:57]** so just a reminder at rbkniha.cz, Dáda Císařovská, one of the network's talents, recommended **[01:29:03]** the book Awaken Your Divinity, and soon on Monday we will announce the next book of the month, **[01:29:07]** recommended by Vlastokocian, so this is the current book of the month. **[01:29:11]** And definitely keep following Red Button.edu, watch the shows available. **[01:29:16]** As I said, Pepaholí will come in the eighth month, **[01:29:22]** but in the seventh month we'll pause and stay with science, **[01:29:27]** and it will be a topic very interesting to me and one of my passions. **[01:29:34]** We will talk about genetic engineering, but mainly about the ethical questions **[01:29:39]** connected with it, and Jaroslav Petr accepted the invitation for July 22nd. **[01:29:45]** So if you want, definitely register or log in to edu. **[01:29:51]** And at the same time, if everything goes as we hope, **[01:29:55]** we might be able to meet in a small group physically on site. **[01:30:00]** So that's all for today. **[01:30:04]** Mrs. Dana, thank you very much again for taking the time for us. **[01:30:08]** If you'd like a book tip, I have one. **[01:30:10]** Go ahead. **[01:30:12]** A book by Professor Barta has been published. **[01:30:16]** He was also a guest on Brain and Breakfast. **[01:30:20]** Especially an Egyptologist, but a person with a broad perspective **[01:30:25]** on studying social laws. **[01:30:27]** The book is called The Seven Laws. **[01:30:30]** And it is truly amazing. **[01:30:32]** Thank you very much for this tip as well. **[01:30:34]** Take care, thank you so much, stay with us. **[01:30:37]** Hello and goodbye. **[01:30:39]** Goodbye. **[01:30:55]** www.hradeckralove.com