Is nuclear green?

>> I would like to ask the panelists quickly as a citizen is nuclear green or not? And then as an investor, is there opportunities for VC in nuclear power? Jennifer?

>> Oh I'll answer the later question first. So there are opportunities for investing in nuclear power. We have not made any investments in that area to date but we have actually looked for smaller opportunities where...

>> I mean you don't want to build a reactor but you...

>> Yeah we don't want to build...

>> There are derivatives of that...

>> Inaudible components or different aspects of that. So we have looked at that and there is an opportunity. It's not an area that will be broad based, exciting new category for VC specifically but there are plays in that category.

>> Okay, and as a citizen green or not?

>> You know green's a funny definition because -- I'm going to say no.

>> Okay. Maryann?

>> I'll take your questions in order. So nuclear is certainly green from a carbon perspective. I think on balance as a citizen I would have to say no though. In terms of investing I think it's interesting it follows on your capital efficiency question. And I think nuclear is probably -- nuclear certainly has been in the area of venture investment and so people definitely see the return there and there has been venture investment there. It is not generally an area you can play from a highly capital efficient perspective. You do need to prove out probably a large -- unless you're playing a key component sale into an existing system I think most of the things are trying to be truly disruptive. And so truly disruptive means you need to get an overall system working to a scale that is somewhat meaningful or a proof point that's somewhat meaningful. There's definitely a venture return there but it's going to fit much more into the strategic landscape that you need to work wisely with, with downstream partners.

>> So Ray, this is your new category right?

>> Inaudible

>> Yeah there's something -- I guess it's more capital intensive than cars, right?

Laughter

>> Even be more capital intensive. I absolutely believe this is a sector that has to grow and we have to count on to solve the problem. I do not understand environmentalists that say we want the problem solved and want it solved soon, but you can't use natural gas, you can't use nuclear...

>> You can't use coal.

>> ...you know all coal is bad even clean coal and clean coal's just an oxymoron...

>> Take down the inaudible.

>> I don't get it. I just don't get it. The math doesn't work. It just doesn't work.

>> Watch out for the turtles.

>> And so...

>> Save the turtles.

>> Yeah, save the turtles. You can't put up solar thermal. I mean that's ridiculous inaudible you'll kill something in the desert. So it's -- we have to you know figure out who the enemy is here and it can't be us. And so it is oil. Oil's bad 2 ways: it's certainly hurting the environment but it's also you know fueling...

>> Security...

>> Yeah energy security and then coal. And we need to find a way to bridge to the future so that we reduce greenhouse gases. To do without nuclear I mean everybody uses France as the example. India is building you know new nuclear plants with thorium.

>> Yep.

>> So it's a pretty interesting thing.

>> So even in the United States doesn't seize this opportunity, China and India are certainly going to do it.

>> Absolutely yeah the world will do it. Yeah.

>> And it is.

>> And we won't -- I don't think we'll invite...

>> Well I think he spoke both as a citizen, as an investor in that instance. Yes...

>> No, no I can't -- I just can't get around -- there may be something interest -- I can't get around the regulatory long time frames and capital intensity.

>> So I don't want -- but of course I want to interrupt. That's why I'm moderator. But CMEA who's not on this panel has an investment in a small nuclear company called Nu-Scale.

>> Nu-Scale, right.

>> And there is a model...

>> There's a number of nuclear investments...

>> There is a model there. Hyperion which is little more of a long shot. Michael?

>> Yeah, I've seen those small scale ones. Lifeline environmentalists I think the carbon crisis is too severe that we can't afford to ignore nuclear. Our firm does represent a fusion technology company but it's not capital efficient. There's over half a billion dollars into that so far. So we'll keep our fingers crossed on that one.

>> We spent a lot of time in nuclear. We took public energy solutions -- I think it should be a green sector but having done a lot of diligence with large companies that are doing decontamination, decommissioning, it's not terribly green. From a VC point of view I think interesting technologies include vitrification, but the reality is at least a couple of the you know prominent players in vitrification have had a horrible time with the DOE getting them to convince that this is the right process. And I think as citizens you know if we're pushing our waste off to Italy and we haven't resolved the yuck amount and conundrum we can't properly call it green although we ought to.

>> So forget about the labels or if you want to label it called it "lower carbon" and don't mess with the green part. You don't have to call it renewable. You don't have to call it green.

>> Certainly lower carbon.

>> It's lower carbon.

>> Yeah, it's the decontamination.

>> The Enterprise ran on nuclear power.

>> The Starship Enterprise?

Laughter

>> How do you find all this out?

>> Rumor had it.

>> Back to the future.

==== Transcribed by Automatic Sync Technologies ====