Popular in Social Sciences

Books

City Time: On Being Sentenced to Rikers Island

Independent Scholar David A. Campbell

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Economics

Gender and Economics

University of California Santa Barbara Shelly Lundberg

American Politics

Keeping the Republic

Boston College Marc Landy

Banks and Policy Organisations

Greening the financial sector

European Investment Bank Matteo Ferrazzi

British Politics

Entrepreneurial thinking: the politics and practice of policy impact

University of Sheffield Matthew Flinders

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

Nuclear Energy, Economic Growth, and the Environment

View more insights in Social Sciences - Economics - Microeconomics

View more figures from University of Birmingham

View the page of Nikolaos Fatouros

Read the Study

Nikos Fatouros suggests nuclear energy usage, is not only a necessary welfare maximizing condition, but also a crucial determinant of economic growth in the long run.

Image courtesy of interviewee. May 28, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

The speaker presents a study focused on nuclear energy's role in the context of climate change and energy production. They highlight that, while alternative energy sources like solar and wind power are commonly discussed for cleaner production, nuclear energy has been largely overlooked in the literature. The research aims to fill this gap by analyzing how integrating nuclear energy into the energy mix can impact economic growth, welfare, and emissions.

Key findings from the study include:

1. **Safety and Efficiency**: Nuclear energy has proven to be safer than other energy forms when considering deaths per energy produced, and it also exhibits low emissions compared to solar and wind energy.

2. **Economic Modeling**: The study introduces a theoretical macroeconomic model that examines the effects of nuclear energy on economic growth, which has been less explored in existing literature, predominantly empirical studies.

3. **Future Outlooks**: The research indicates that nuclear energy should be included in energy policy discussions, particularly as nations seek to balance development with environmental concerns. The results suggest that depending on specific economic contexts, optimal policies around nuclear energy can lead to more sustainable growth without compromising safety.

4. **Environmental Impact**: The environmental K curve theory is discussed, proposing that with the right policies, economic growth can progress without an increase in emissions over time.

5. **Recommendations**: The study advocates for investments in nuclear technology to enhance safety and reduce environmental impacts. It argues that nuclear energy has the potential to contribute significantly to meeting energy needs while addressing climate change, particularly for developing countries.

The overarching conclusion urges policymakers to consider nuclear power as part of the energy transition and to overcome prejudices against it by setting aside emotional biases in favor of rational analysis of its benefits and risks for sustainable development.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.145 --> 00:03.525
My motivation behind our study, was the fact that,

00:03.525 --> 00:07.605
climate change is a really big, issue, in this,

00:07.705 --> 00:09.485
in this time, like, especially in the start

00:09.485 --> 00:10.805
of the 21st century.

00:10.805 --> 00:14.045
However, the main problem that we were having was

00:14.045 --> 00:17.925
that we are thinking of ways that we can produce, more

00:18.555 --> 00:20.005
cleanly, I would say,

00:20.005 --> 00:22.205
and essentially more efficiently as well.

00:22.665 --> 00:25.805
Uh, but the main thing is that, nuclear energy was kind

00:25.805 --> 00:28.125
of neglected, in the literature so far

00:28.125 --> 00:32.205
because, every time the researchers would actually think

00:32.205 --> 00:36.725
of cleaner and, even efficient ways of producing,

00:36.755 --> 00:39.965
they would, more specifically think about,

00:40.015 --> 00:42.445
solar energy or wind generated energy.

00:42.865 --> 00:44.485
So nuclear energy has been long,

00:45.075 --> 00:46.805
long collected in the literature,

00:47.105 --> 00:50.325
and we thought that, this would actually be,

00:51.385 --> 00:52.765
the main contribution of our paper

00:52.815 --> 00:55.325
where we would actually be able to explore how

00:55.885 --> 00:58.805
introducing nuclear energy into the production mix would

00:58.805 --> 01:01.725
change the results in terms of welfare, in terms of output,

01:02.225 --> 01:03.645
sp nuclear energy specifically

01:03.645 --> 01:05.045
because, so when I,

01:05.395 --> 01:08.245
when we were thinking about this project, I,

01:08.245 --> 01:09.845
there's a really great dataset.

01:09.845 --> 01:12.685
Uh, it's called Our World in Bank, our World in Data.

01:13.465 --> 01:16.045
And, I was actually just looking,

01:16.225 --> 01:17.325
in some data there.

01:17.425 --> 01:20.005
And what was really striking to me is that,

01:20.115 --> 01:22.485
when we compare different types of energy,

01:22.485 --> 01:25.725
first when it comes to, how dangerous they are,

01:26.075 --> 01:28.925
nuclear energy was the most safe,

01:28.925 --> 01:31.965
when the metric is deaths were energy produced.

01:32.705 --> 01:34.405
So it's not just about the fact

01:34.405 --> 01:36.405
that we are using less nuclear energy,

01:36.405 --> 01:39.445
however, even if we take into account the scale

01:39.595 --> 01:41.285
that we're using it,

01:41.555 --> 01:44.445
nuclear energy had way less deaths even compared

01:44.445 --> 01:48.125
to solar panels, at the same time when it comes

01:48.185 --> 01:49.245
to efficiency.

01:49.265 --> 01:51.925
And, they're pretty much the same.

01:52.585 --> 01:55.765
But another striking thing was that, when it comes

01:55.785 --> 01:59.565
to emissions, it's actually way cleaner compared to either,

01:59.825 --> 02:03.525
solar energy or wind, or wind generated energy.

02:03.945 --> 02:05.565
So in that sense, we thought

02:05.565 --> 02:09.165
that it would be a great idea to explore how would,

02:09.685 --> 02:13.405
a paradigm using like a typical economic model,

02:13.555 --> 02:16.005
look like when we are actually introducing nuclear

02:16.005 --> 02:17.325
energy into the equation.

02:17.985 --> 02:21.445
The literature in general, in, in economic growth

02:21.465 --> 02:25.165
and energy, has mainly been revolving around, grid,

02:26.025 --> 02:29.125
as I said, like solar, solar panels,

02:29.205 --> 02:30.845
wind generated energy, et cetera.

02:30.995 --> 02:32.725
There's another stream in the literature

02:32.835 --> 02:34.725
that has been exploring the effect

02:34.725 --> 02:36.605
of nuclear energy on economic growth.

02:36.795 --> 02:39.045
However, this was mainly done empirically.

02:39.705 --> 02:41.525
So there wasn't really,

02:41.745 --> 02:43.485
any theoretical macroeconomic model,

02:43.485 --> 02:46.845
which we would actually try to analyze that channels

02:46.845 --> 02:49.805
through, nuclear energy could be affecting,

02:50.185 --> 02:51.245
economic growth.

02:51.385 --> 02:54.285
So in that sense, what we thought that, our contribution

02:54.285 --> 02:57.605
of the paper wasn't this contribution

02:59.025 --> 03:02.925
Was that, we are not only, modeling the,

03:03.325 --> 03:05.085
situation around,

03:05.185 --> 03:07.525
the production function when we're introducing nuclear

03:07.545 --> 03:09.045
energy, but at the same time,

03:09.055 --> 03:11.325
we're actually laying the theoretical framework

03:11.815 --> 03:13.605
where other researchers in the future,

03:13.755 --> 03:14.885
when they doing empirical work,

03:14.885 --> 03:16.885
they can actually base their analysis on.

03:17.345 --> 03:19.445
So I think that it was, it was rather crucial,

03:19.505 --> 03:20.925
but at least we could actually fill

03:20.995 --> 03:22.725
that void in the literature

03:22.795 --> 03:26.205
because you have, we have a very broad topic of energy

03:26.345 --> 03:29.565
and economic growth when it comes to generally green,

03:29.575 --> 03:31.045
green energy and economic growth.

03:31.065 --> 03:33.765
We have both theoretical and empirical established,

03:33.765 --> 03:36.725
but when it comes to the nuclear energy, example,

03:36.865 --> 03:38.805
we didn't really have the theoretical work

03:38.865 --> 03:40.325
to back up our findings.

03:41.005 --> 03:43.885
Actually, we based our analysis on, a really,

03:44.155 --> 03:47.645
fundamental in the area of, paper of, dar mo

03:47.645 --> 03:50.525
and golfers and thought, well, when what they're doing is

03:50.525 --> 03:52.165
that they're analyzing,

03:53.395 --> 03:57.685
essentially the production function, how would that affect,

03:57.945 --> 04:01.445
incentives throughout entrepreneurship, et cetera,

04:01.465 --> 04:04.925
in order to translate that, into economic growth.

04:05.265 --> 04:06.605
We use that as the foundation.

04:06.715 --> 04:09.365
What we do is that we're introducing nuclear energy, energy

04:09.385 --> 04:10.445
to our production function,

04:11.065 --> 04:15.085
and just by basing following at least their,

04:15.085 --> 04:17.045
their framework up until some point.

04:17.305 --> 04:19.805
And that, and I'm gonna explain a bit later about

04:19.805 --> 04:21.725
what this point is,

04:21.865 --> 04:25.605
and then we're actually seeing how our results are different

04:26.365 --> 04:28.765
compared to their paper when we're using nuclear analogy.

04:29.315 --> 04:32.045
When, the framework becomes really different,

04:32.185 --> 04:35.485
it becomes really different by the fact that nuclear energy

04:36.105 --> 04:39.565
is not just, as I said, a bit more efficient.

04:39.875 --> 04:42.725
It's also cleaner compared to other means of production.

04:42.835 --> 04:44.525
However, the main difference is

04:44.525 --> 04:48.045
that it introduces uncertainty into the macroeconomic model,

04:48.045 --> 04:51.445
because in a way, when we're using nuclear energy,

04:51.585 --> 04:54.005
of course, in the good times, everything is fine,

04:54.025 --> 04:56.605
and we're producing, highly,

04:56.785 --> 04:58.365
and we don't have so many emissions.

04:58.365 --> 05:01.685
However, the problem is that in case of a natural,

05:02.265 --> 05:05.005
in case of a disaster, a disaster happening,

05:05.005 --> 05:06.245
a nuclear disaster happening,

05:06.475 --> 05:08.165
then we really do have a problem.

05:08.945 --> 05:10.525
And that introduces uncertainty.

05:10.595 --> 05:12.085
It's still with a small probability,

05:12.085 --> 05:14.765
however, this is affecting essentially

05:14.865 --> 05:17.045
how agents are making decisions.

05:17.315 --> 05:20.365
Essentially, what we did in the paper was not just,

05:20.545 --> 05:23.525
trying to see what are, the different results

05:23.525 --> 05:24.805
that we'll be getting,

05:25.115 --> 05:27.005
when we're introducing nuclear energy.

05:27.065 --> 05:29.925
At the same time, we try to replicate,

05:29.945 --> 05:32.045
at least based on our model, a version

05:32.045 --> 05:33.605
of the environmental K curve.

05:33.985 --> 05:35.645
So for the audience that are not familiar

05:35.645 --> 05:37.805
with the environmental K curve,

05:38.235 --> 05:40.565
it's essentially a prediction that,

05:40.595 --> 05:42.965
when countries are growing in the start,

05:42.965 --> 05:46.805
we're gonna observe some, rapid increase in emissions,

05:46.825 --> 05:48.765
and then in the, towards the end,

05:48.765 --> 05:50.805
and when they're actually more developed,

05:50.805 --> 05:53.165
we should be expecting some reduction in emissions.

05:53.785 --> 05:56.885
So, the main finding from our paper is

05:56.885 --> 05:59.165
That it, it really depends on whether

05:59.225 --> 06:03.125
or not policy makers are adopting optimal policies.

06:03.225 --> 06:05.485
So in our paper, what we do is that we're trying

06:05.485 --> 06:07.045
to find those optimal policies,

06:07.345 --> 06:10.525
and this, of course, defer based on the actual specifics

06:10.525 --> 06:13.085
and characteristics, characteristics of its economy.

06:13.625 --> 06:15.285
And that would actually be,

06:16.185 --> 06:17.445
it would change the parameters

06:17.445 --> 06:19.605
that we're calibrating within the model.

06:19.705 --> 06:21.805
And for a different, country,

06:21.895 --> 06:24.165
we'll be getting different results,

06:24.165 --> 06:26.125
really different optimal policies.

06:26.345 --> 06:28.325
And when we're actually implementing those,

06:28.585 --> 06:30.365
we could actually, be able

06:30.365 --> 06:32.285
to replicate a different environmental.

06:33.865 --> 06:37.925
So, in that sense, the main findings were that, first

06:37.925 --> 06:42.085
of all, nuclear energy belongs in the, production mix.

06:42.425 --> 06:45.165
So we're not saying that everyone should be using nuclear

06:45.225 --> 06:46.285
energy no matter what,

06:46.305 --> 06:47.885
but what we're seeing is that,

06:47.905 --> 06:49.685
it definitely has a place there

06:49.915 --> 06:52.485
because we have to realize that it's,

06:52.585 --> 06:54.565
in many occasions way more efficient.

06:55.115 --> 06:57.645
It's cleaner than other means of production.

06:58.065 --> 07:01.845
And what we would actually have to do in order to,

07:02.475 --> 07:04.325
take into account the risk that comes

07:04.325 --> 07:07.205
with nuclear energy is essentially work on the,

07:07.215 --> 07:12.085
technology that, is, helping us produce,

07:12.085 --> 07:14.285
in a nuclear plant, et cetera, make it safer.

07:15.065 --> 07:17.885
And if we are actually, if we're actually able to do that,

07:17.955 --> 07:19.725
then, the actual environmental

07:20.565 --> 07:23.765
that we'll be observing is essentially, some

07:24.285 --> 07:27.165
reduction in emissions throughout the

07:27.165 --> 07:28.405
whole development state.

07:28.465 --> 07:30.405
So it wouldn't really have to be the case

07:30.435 --> 07:33.485
that when we are talking about a developing country

07:34.145 --> 07:36.405
in the start of their development path,

07:36.435 --> 07:38.245
they would really have to use cheaper

07:38.385 --> 07:40.125
and dirty means of production,

07:40.235 --> 07:41.805
because nuclear energy,

07:41.805 --> 07:44.445
especially if we would actually be able to invest in it,

07:44.545 --> 07:48.365
it might a case that's actually cheaper and safer

07:48.825 --> 07:51.805
and more efficient compared to other means of production.

07:51.985 --> 07:53.965
So that would actually be able,

07:53.995 --> 07:56.485
that would be a possible way of us,

07:56.705 --> 07:59.645
of helping us mitigating the climate change issue.

07:59.995 --> 08:03.045
When it comes to the, to the conclusions, I think that,

08:03.385 --> 08:06.285
as I said earlier, of course, the main finding was

08:06.285 --> 08:10.325
that nuclear energy belongs to the, to the policy mix.

08:10.825 --> 08:13.045
Uh, another thing is that,

08:13.425 --> 08:15.085
it really depends on the specific

08:15.085 --> 08:16.365
characteristics of an economy.

08:16.385 --> 08:20.325
To give you an example, I wouldn't really,

08:21.285 --> 08:23.525
I have them, have the example of Canada in my mind

08:23.525 --> 08:25.765
because I have done my page in Canada.

08:25.785 --> 08:27.845
And what was really striking for me was

08:27.845 --> 08:29.365
that there was no earthquake ever.

08:29.785 --> 08:32.645
So I'm originally from Greece, so you know, I was,

08:33.115 --> 08:35.565
when I was growing up, I was really used to having lots

08:35.565 --> 08:37.165
of earthquakes once in a while.

08:37.665 --> 08:39.405
So in the case of Canada, for example,

08:39.435 --> 08:43.165
when we don't really have, either,

08:44.035 --> 08:47.485
earthquakes or either some other possible sources of danger

08:47.615 --> 08:51.725
where we might have serious considerations on using,

08:51.865 --> 08:54.805
on producing nuclear energy, I think that in cases

08:54.995 --> 08:56.685
Like that, it would be ideal.

08:56.825 --> 09:01.645
And, in the, with the example of Japan, it's a country

09:01.715 --> 09:06.085
that is basing their production function on nuclear energy,

09:06.465 --> 09:09.725
and production of nuclear energy, despite the fact

09:09.725 --> 09:13.885
that they are actually having this, massive earthquakes.

09:14.145 --> 09:18.045
And essentially we would be having, depending on, you know,

09:18.385 --> 09:21.125
some specific Caucasians, we, it could be the case

09:21.125 --> 09:24.205
that this doesn't go well, but for the most part, just

09:24.205 --> 09:27.045
because they're, we see that they keep using it.

09:27.225 --> 09:30.525
At least to me, that's evidence that, if that works

09:30.525 --> 09:33.845
for Japan, it can actually work for other countries as well

09:33.845 --> 09:36.645
where they don't have, these things to worry about.

09:36.745 --> 09:39.325
So when it comes to the final conclusions,

09:39.505 --> 09:41.925
and, what I would actually, what I think

09:41.925 --> 09:45.365
that is the final message of the paper is that,

09:45.385 --> 09:49.005
as economic agents, sometimes we're, we're not

09:49.005 --> 09:51.605
as rational as economic models,

09:51.705 --> 09:53.045
assume must to be, right?

09:53.105 --> 09:55.605
So, we're not really think about,

09:55.655 --> 09:58.205
we're not really thinking about the, cost

09:58.225 --> 09:59.525
and benefits in real time.

09:59.525 --> 10:01.645
But what we do is that sometimes we're,

10:01.665 --> 10:04.325
we have this prejudice disease, we have these thoughts,

10:04.325 --> 10:06.205
we have, we're acting on emotion.

10:06.945 --> 10:10.685
So essentially the main conclusion there is that I think

10:10.685 --> 10:13.605
that, we should actually set that aside for a bit,

10:13.755 --> 10:17.085
because this, at at least nuclear, it could be a way

10:17.195 --> 10:19.565
that we can actually, deal

10:19.565 --> 10:21.205
with the climate change issue.

10:21.215 --> 10:23.045
Again, I'm not saying that it's perfect,

10:23.155 --> 10:25.245
it's far from perfect, in fact,

10:25.385 --> 10:27.405
and there are many ways that we are actually,

10:27.825 --> 10:30.405
we can actually make it not only safer, but also cleaner,

10:30.595 --> 10:32.325
because even nuclear energy,

10:32.325 --> 10:33.965
energy has some environmental impact

10:33.965 --> 10:37.205
because we haven't really found efficient ways of dealing

10:37.235 --> 10:41.575
with waste, that comes with this production, right?

10:41.635 --> 10:44.855
So, when it comes to, areas of future research,

10:45.055 --> 10:48.135
I think that now that we have at least some,

10:48.135 --> 10:50.375
theoretical, macroeconomic model

10:50.375 --> 10:53.575
that we can actually think about different channels, I think

10:53.575 --> 10:56.135
that, it would be ideal for us.

10:56.195 --> 10:57.735
And now as the years go by

10:57.735 --> 11:00.295
and we have more data to essentially explore

11:00.295 --> 11:02.975
and empirically what is indeed happening with nuclear

11:03.155 --> 11:07.415
and how it does affect, our production functions,

11:07.475 --> 11:08.495
that's actually one

11:08.495 --> 11:10.775
and two, essentially just,

11:12.255 --> 11:15.535
motivate policy makers to invest in nuclear energy,

11:15.595 --> 11:17.295
at least in a way that they can make,

11:17.435 --> 11:18.775
we can make it not only safer,

11:18.915 --> 11:23.095
but also cleaner so that we can give exams,

11:23.395 --> 11:27.375
to even developing countries grow in a more sustainable way

11:27.595 --> 11:30.615
and in a way that is not going to jeopardize their climate.

00:00 - My motivation behind our study, was the fact that, climate change is a really big, issue, in this, in this time, like, especially in the start of the 21st century. However, the main problem that we were having was that we are thinking of ways that we can produce, more

00:18 - cleanly, I would say, and essentially more efficiently as well. but the main thing is that, nuclear energy was kind of neglected, in the literature so far because, every time the researchers would actually think of cleaner and, even efficient ways of producing, they would, more specifically think about, solar energy or wind generated energy. So nuclear energy has been long, long collected in the literature,

00:47 - and we thought that, this would actually be, the main contribution of our paper where we would actually be able to explore how introducing nuclear energy into the production mix would change the results in terms of welfare, in terms of output, sp nuclear energy specifically because, so when I, when we were thinking about this project, I, there's a really great dataset. it's called Our World in Bank, our World in Data.

01:13 - And, I was actually just looking, in some data there. And what was really striking to me is that, when we compare different types of energy, first when it comes to, how dangerous they are, nuclear energy was the most safe, when the metric is deaths were energy produced. So it's not just about the fact that we are using less nuclear energy, however, even if we take into account the scale

01:39 - that we're using it, nuclear energy had way less deaths even compared to solar panels, at the same time when it comes to efficiency. And, they're pretty much the same. But another striking thing was that, when it comes to emissions, it's actually way cleaner compared to either, solar energy or wind, or wind generated energy. So in that sense, we thought that it would be a great idea to explore how would,

02:09 - a paradigm using like a typical economic model, look like when we are actually introducing nuclear energy into the equation. The literature in general, in, in economic growth and energy, has mainly been revolving around, grid, as I said, like solar, solar panels, wind generated energy, et cetera. There's another stream in the literature that has been exploring the effect of nuclear energy on economic growth.

02:36 - However, this was mainly done empirically. So there wasn't really, any theoretical macroeconomic model, which we would actually try to analyze that channels through, nuclear energy could be affecting, economic growth. So in that sense, what we thought that, our contribution of the paper wasn't this contribution Was that, we are not only, modeling the, situation around,

03:05 - the production function when we're introducing nuclear energy, but at the same time, we're actually laying the theoretical framework where other researchers in the future, when they doing empirical work, they can actually base their analysis on. So I think that it was, it was rather crucial, but at least we could actually fill that void in the literature because you have, we have a very broad topic of energy

03:26 - and economic growth when it comes to generally green, green energy and economic growth. We have both theoretical and empirical established, but when it comes to the nuclear energy, example, we didn't really have the theoretical work to back up our findings. Actually, we based our analysis on, a really, fundamental in the area of, paper of, dar mo and golfers and thought, well, when what they're doing is that they're analyzing,

03:53 - essentially the production function, how would that affect, incentives throughout entrepreneurship, et cetera, in order to translate that, into economic growth. We use that as the foundation. What we do is that we're introducing nuclear energy, energy to our production function, and just by basing following at least their, their framework up until some point. And that, and I'm gonna explain a bit later about what this point is,

04:21 - and then we're actually seeing how our results are different compared to their paper when we're using nuclear analogy. When, the framework becomes really different, it becomes really different by the fact that nuclear energy is not just, as I said, a bit more efficient. It's also cleaner compared to other means of production. However, the main difference is that it introduces uncertainty into the macroeconomic model, because in a way, when we're using nuclear energy, of course, in the good times, everything is fine,

04:54 - and we're producing, highly, and we don't have so many emissions. However, the problem is that in case of a natural, in case of a disaster, a disaster happening, a nuclear disaster happening, then we really do have a problem. And that introduces uncertainty. It's still with a small probability, however, this is affecting essentially how agents are making decisions.

05:17 - Essentially, what we did in the paper was not just, trying to see what are, the different results that we'll be getting, when we're introducing nuclear energy. At the same time, we try to replicate, at least based on our model, a version of the environmental K curve. So for the audience that are not familiar with the environmental K curve, it's essentially a prediction that,

05:40 - when countries are growing in the start, we're gonna observe some, rapid increase in emissions, and then in the, towards the end, and when they're actually more developed, we should be expecting some reduction in emissions. So, the main finding from our paper is That it, it really depends on whether or not policy makers are adopting optimal policies. So in our paper, what we do is that we're trying to find those optimal policies,

06:07 - and this, of course, defer based on the actual specifics and characteristics, characteristics of its economy. And that would actually be, it would change the parameters that we're calibrating within the model. And for a different, country, we'll be getting different results, really different optimal policies. And when we're actually implementing those, we could actually, be able

06:30 - to replicate a different environmental. So, in that sense, the main findings were that, first of all, nuclear energy belongs in the, production mix. So we're not saying that everyone should be using nuclear energy no matter what, but what we're seeing is that, it definitely has a place there because we have to realize that it's, in many occasions way more efficient. It's cleaner than other means of production.

06:58 - And what we would actually have to do in order to, take into account the risk that comes with nuclear energy is essentially work on the, technology that, is, helping us produce, in a nuclear plant, et cetera, make it safer. And if we are actually, if we're actually able to do that, then, the actual environmental that we'll be observing is essentially, some reduction in emissions throughout the whole development state.

07:28 - So it wouldn't really have to be the case that when we are talking about a developing country in the start of their development path, they would really have to use cheaper and dirty means of production, because nuclear energy, especially if we would actually be able to invest in it, it might a case that's actually cheaper and safer and more efficient compared to other means of production. So that would actually be able,

07:53 - that would be a possible way of us, of helping us mitigating the climate change issue. When it comes to the, to the conclusions, I think that, as I said earlier, of course, the main finding was that nuclear energy belongs to the, to the policy mix. another thing is that, it really depends on the specific characteristics of an economy. To give you an example, I wouldn't really, I have them, have the example of Canada in my mind

08:23 - because I have done my page in Canada. And what was really striking for me was that there was no earthquake ever. So I'm originally from Greece, so you know, I was, when I was growing up, I was really used to having lots of earthquakes once in a while. So in the case of Canada, for example, when we don't really have, either, earthquakes or either some other possible sources of danger where we might have serious considerations on using,

08:51 - on producing nuclear energy, I think that in cases Like that, it would be ideal. And, in the, with the example of Japan, it's a country that is basing their production function on nuclear energy, and production of nuclear energy, despite the fact that they are actually having this, massive earthquakes. And essentially we would be having, depending on, you know, some specific Caucasians, we, it could be the case that this doesn't go well, but for the most part, just because they're, we see that they keep using it.

09:27 - At least to me, that's evidence that, if that works for Japan, it can actually work for other countries as well where they don't have, these things to worry about. So when it comes to the final conclusions, and, what I would actually, what I think that is the final message of the paper is that, as economic agents, sometimes we're, we're not as rational as economic models, assume must to be, right? So, we're not really think about,

09:55 - we're not really thinking about the, cost and benefits in real time. But what we do is that sometimes we're, we have this prejudice disease, we have these thoughts, we have, we're acting on emotion. So essentially the main conclusion there is that I think that, we should actually set that aside for a bit, because this, at at least nuclear, it could be a way that we can actually, deal with the climate change issue.

10:21 - Again, I'm not saying that it's perfect, it's far from perfect, in fact, and there are many ways that we are actually, we can actually make it not only safer, but also cleaner, because even nuclear energy, energy has some environmental impact because we haven't really found efficient ways of dealing with waste, that comes with this production, right? So, when it comes to, areas of future research, I think that now that we have at least some,

10:48 - theoretical, macroeconomic model that we can actually think about different channels, I think that, it would be ideal for us. And now as the years go by and we have more data to essentially explore and empirically what is indeed happening with nuclear and how it does affect, our production functions, that's actually one and two, essentially just, motivate policy makers to invest in nuclear energy,

11:15 - at least in a way that they can make, we can make it not only safer, but also cleaner so that we can give exams, to even developing countries grow in a more sustainable way and in a way that is not going to jeopardize their climate.

Faculti AI can make mistakes