Latest / Yaron Brook Show / News Update; Nuclear Energy -- Past, Present & Future? | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

News Update; Nuclear Energy -- Past, Present & Future? | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:04
  Speaker 1: A lot of it under the metal principles of edo LA,
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: little self interest and an individual loss. This is the show.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: Oh right, everybody, welcome to your one book show on
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: this Monday, June first. I hope everybody is having a
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: great beginning to the week. And uh yeah, we can
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: we can move on, all right, Thomas says, you and
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Nicos needed a music history geek to join you yesterday. Yes, probably,
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: but uh yes, all right, let's jump because we have
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: a lot to talk about today. It's a full show,
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: so I was gonna do two shows today. I was
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: going to do a new show, quick new show earlier
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: and then do a full show on nuclear power. The
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: Nuclear power show is being sponsored by Richard. He made
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: one thousand bucks for it, so you two can sponsor
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: a show on any topic you want for one thousand dollars.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: So I'm going to dedicate a solid hour at least
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: to the nuclear power topic. So that is going to
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: come after the news. So we're gonna go well into
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: the third hour today. So I'm asking you to consider
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: it to be generous given that it's going to be
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: three hours and we've got a two fifteen an hour
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: kind of minimum to raise so please consider that. But yeah,
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: so we're gonna we're gonna go through some news and
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: then we're gonna go into the nuclear the new clear stuff,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: and we're going to cover that. I should have brought
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Alex Epstein for that. Epstein for that. That is that
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: is true. Alex is hard to get these days and
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: hard to reach. But he's a busy guy. But yes,
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: I've been trying to contact him to come on the show,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: but well, he responds, we haven't been able to make
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: it possible. Anyway, I think we've got you know, I've
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: done my research, you know, I've I've done a lot
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: of my research based on Alex's stuff. So I think
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: you're going to get Alex, like with some of you
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: on flair response to the nuclear the UK issues. So
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: I don't think you'll I hope, I hope you will
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: not be disappointed. All right, tell let's jump in with
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: the news. And as always these days, at the top
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: of the news is Iran. It's just the roller coaster continues,
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: the zigzagging, the pathetic, uh you know, defeatist attitude of
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump just continues to be in display. Anyway, you
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: woke up this morning and this morning The headlines basically
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: were Iran walking away from negotiations. Iran has decided it's
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: not gonna negotiate anymore. It's not returning emails, it's not
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: returning texts, it's it's done with negotiating. And the Pakistani said,
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: you know, forget about it, and the Kataris forget about it.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: Iran doesn't want to negotiate. Uh. And I was like, yes,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: I knew the Ranians would save us in the end,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: but never underestimate Donald Trump's willingness to grovel and to basically,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: you know, succumb to any of the Iranian demands. Donald
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: Trump wants a deal. He's desperate for a deal that's
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: not's the one one he's desperate for. He's got a
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: World Cup that starts, Nico said, in ten days, nine
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: days from now. But he doesn't want to be at
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: war with the World Cup happening. He's got the courts
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: all over him, he's got internal challenges and everything. He
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: doesn't need a war to be a distraction from all that.
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: Right now, he needs to focus. He's got you know,
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: he's got an election, and the election is coming up fast.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: We're already in June, June first today, So we'll talk
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: about five months to an election. He's panicking. I mean,
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: he could lose the Senate. The numbers look terrific. He
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: could lose the Republicans, could lose about the House and
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: the Senate, and then he's in trouble for the next
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: two years. You might as well resigning because he'll get
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: nothing done. Right, So, uh, Trump needs a deal, but
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: he can't make the deal completely surrender. He has to
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: have some eke out, some kind of legitimacy for it.
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: So anyway, it turns out the Iranians were really, really
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: really upset. They were upset the Ranians. They were upset,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: and we don't want the Ranians upset, right, The Ranians
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: were upset because Israel is advancing in southern Lebanon. They
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: crossed the li Tiny River. Ground forces across the Litani River,
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: took the Beaufort, a castle which is which is a
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: strategic point in southern Lebanon, kind of between Israeli brought
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: in Beirut. It's it's a high peak, you know, and
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: it it it is an ancient fortress, and it's an
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: ancient fortress for a reason, because it's a high peak
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: and a strategic it gives you strategic control over the landscape.
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: And Israel is conquered the bele for and has been
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: pounding Arizabella, including bombing in Bay Root. And like the
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: Uranian said, We're not doing a deal unless Israel has
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: a cease fire in Lebanon. We you know that is
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: a precondition. We're not even gonna talk to you unless
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: there is a cease fire in Lebanon. So Israel, So
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: Iwans insisted on Israel seeking a ceasefire before anything. Anything
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: is is grateful enough. Of course, Iran is the one
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: that pokes Risbella constantly to attack Israel, to give it
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: an excuse not to keep negotiating with Trump, so you
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: can make look Trump look like an idiot, you know.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: So Israel responded, and he might said, oh, I'm upset
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: because Israel responded, and then Trump passed to call in
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: Antenny hour and yell at him. I mean, Trump is
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: so desperate for a deal before the world economy drops
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: off a cliff or prices in the United States head
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: towards eight bucks a gallon. And at this point the
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: Iranians are running rings around Trump, running rings around you.
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: It's the most embarrassing display of so called negotiation I
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: have ever seen the Ranians have a strategy. They're gonna
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: keep haranguing. They're gonna keep insisting on everything that they want.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: They're going to keep they want the money, they don't
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: want to commit on nuclear, they want to control Homeore straits,
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: and they'll just keep insisting on that, keep insisting on that.
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: They're suffering because they're poor and no money's coming in
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: and it can't sell oil. Although who knows what's going
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: on in that eastern border they have with Pakistan and
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: Afghanistan and and a road to be to China, and
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: who knows what's going going on in the Crimean, you know,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: with their road to Tajikistan and boats going to Russia,
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: so who knows what's coming in and out through there.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: But the reality is Iran doesn't seem like it's in.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: How everybody said, oh, three weeks and they'll have to
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: cap their wells, Well it turns out they don't. For
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: some reason. They're able to pump that oil and it's
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: going somewhere. So all the estimates were wrong about Iran's desperation.
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: Iran can afford to stay weak, at to stay poor.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: It can afford to starve its own people. Water supplies
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: in Iran a running low. Who cares so people will die?
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: They don't care. Trump cares. Trump cares. Trump wants to
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: be loved. The Iranian regime does not care about love.
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: Trump wants to be loved. He's a narcissist. So they
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: have a strategy, which is just pound away at the
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: things that they want, pound and pound. When they won
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: more time, Haris Bala attack Israel, for Israel to attacks
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: Balla and then say, whoops, can negotiate because they broke
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: the ceasefire. Trump has no strategy, nothing. So what did
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Trump do today when it was announced that uh Iranian withdrew,
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: Trump said, oh, I don't care. I don't care if
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: they withdraw. I don't care about that. That's what he
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: said publicly. But in the background he called up in
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: the Tenniel Despert be desperate, right, and he says, so,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: this is what he said this afternoon. He said, so,
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: I spoke with his mallah. He didn't he spoke with
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: the people in Lebanon. I spoke with these Ballah and
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: I said no shooting. And I talked to Bibi and
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: said no shooting. And they both stopped shooting each other.
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: So he's got to cease fire. But what really happened
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: is he called Antennieu and he yelled at him, and
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: he him and he demanded that Israel stop shooting. Now.
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: Ntaniell says the opposite, right, you know, Nathaniel says, here's Natenelle.
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: Here's a tweet from him. When was this tweet? It
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: was yeah, today at three thirty two, So so about
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: three hours ago tonight. I spoke with President Trump and
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: told him that if Risabella does not cease attacking our
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: cities and citizens, Israel will attack terror targets in Beirut.
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: This stance of ours remains unchanged. In parallel, the IDEF
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: will continue to operate as planned in southern Lebanon. So N'tenniel,
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: who's facing an election, UH is taking the stance publicly.
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: I haven't agreed to fire, and let Risbella needs to stop.
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: If it stops, okay, maybe we'll stop bombing Birut, but
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: we're not going to stop the operation of Southern Lebanon.
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: And Trump called the Lebanese government and the Libertese government said, yeah,
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: we'll we'll We'll tell Isbella to stop is if they
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: have any power over the Chrisbella. I mean, the only
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: people that power of Chrisbella is are the Uranians, and
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: the Iranians use Grisbella for whenever they need an excuse
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: to break off negotiations. Worth Trump. When Trump earlier today
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: was asked about the negotiations being over, this is what
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: he said to reporter in CNBC. I don't care if
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: they're over. Honestly, I really don't care. I couldn't care less.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: If they're over, they're over. If they're not, you know,
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: I think they took too much time. Frankly, I thought
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: they started to get very boring. The negotiations got boring.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: This is the President of the United States. But then,
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: you know again, he then said, no, they're back, and
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: we're going to get a deal, and within a week
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: we're gonna have a deal and deals within a week.
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: And you know, after yelling at BIB and forcing both
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: BB and the Lebanese government, I guess into a cease fire.
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: You know, who knows what's gonna happen. Who knows what's
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: gonna happen. In the meantime, It's turned out that the
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: United States Navy has quietly been guiding approximately over the
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: last three weeks has been guiding approximately seventy commercial vessels
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: in and out of the States of Homoes. According to
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: the report, most of the vessels transited with their transponders
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: off to avoid being targeted by Iranian fires by the Iranians,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: and also they transited very close to Oman away from
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: roots as a by Iran's Persian golf authority. And this
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: kind of explains why there's been some shooting over there.
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: The US is down some of the speed boats, they've
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: taken out some radars. You know, They've done a few
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: things to kind of clear out the States of Homos.
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: This is what they could do at scale and open
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: up the streets completely. I've always said the US Navy
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: is completely one hundred percent capable of opening up the
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: streets and Homos. It's a question of wild Trump. Let
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: them wild Trump, give them an authority. Now, remember seventy boats.
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: Traffic in and out was at one hundred and thirty
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty boats a day, So seventeen three
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: weeks is pretty pathetic. Said four boats, three to four
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: boats at eight yep. Uh, all right, let's see. So
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: that was iwan Trump. I mean, I feel kind of
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: terrible about spending time on it because nothing really changes.
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: But I God, I don't know where all the Trump
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: fans are. They're not on the Chat anymore, they don't
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: listen to the show live anymore, or at least don't participate,
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: and the obnoxious ones I blocked. But if there's still
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: Trump fans out there, explain this to me. I'm curious
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: if anybody can give a you know, he's been named
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: by some people within the objectivist world as the greatest
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: president ever. I mean, just look at how he behaves
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: with Ivan, and you tell me this is how a decent, ever,
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: my good president behaves. All Right's shifting from Donald Trump
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: to Bernie Sanders. This is perfect. Bernie is going to
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: introduce a bill to Congress to have the government take
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: a fifty percent ownership stake in the country's biggest AI companies.
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: The American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act would have the
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: government tax AI companies and take fifty percent of the
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: stock and put it under the public control. Now, I
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: assume that is because it would give the government then
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: the ability to control the agenda of the AI companies.
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: I mean, instead of regulating, they'll just own them and
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: The government will also benefit if the AI stocks go
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: through the roof, although with government control it is unlikely
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: that that will actually happen. Right his from Bernie Sanders himself.
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: This legislation will give the public a direct ownership stake
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: in the largest AI companies in our country. How it
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: would create a sovereign wealth fund through a one time
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: fifty percent tax fifty tax fifty five zero, not on
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: the profits of Opening and Topic Xai and other companies,
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: but paid was something far more valuable than that the stock,
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: So the companies would just have to hand over the stock,
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: just hand it over. If passed, this legislation would do
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: two crucial things. First, it would give the public a
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: direct role in determining the future of this technology. No
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: longer the future of AI and the transformation of human
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: life that it will bring be dictated by a handful
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: of big tech oligogsy. That's right. I mean the transformation
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: that electricity and the telephone and you know air flight
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: and the automobile. I mean that was so badly handed
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: by the handled by the big well, by the by
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: the by the robber barons, that we don't want that
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: to happen again. We need to make sure that we
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: have the government involved. No longer the future of AI
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: and the transformation of human life that it brings be
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: dictated by a handful of big tech holagogus. That is
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: a sentence for the ages. Federal government will have the power,
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: through its voting shares and an equal representation on each
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: company's board, to block decisions that hurt our citizens and
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: push for policies that help them. Second, this legislation will
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by AI
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: are used to improve the lives of all of us,
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: not simply to make the richest people in the world
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: even richer. If the big AI companies continue to grow
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: as rapidly as many an analyst expect, they don't expect
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: government ownership, though, then the value of the Southern Wealth
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: Fund will grow as well, and the benefits to all
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: American people will grow along with it. Anyway, that's Bernie saying.
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: Is now I'd say this is crazy, and Bernie is
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: a crazy social and this is horrific and horrible. Bet.
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: The reality is that the Trumpet administration is not quite
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: ready to take fifty percent, but it's taking ownership steak
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: in companies left and right, dozens. It all started with
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: the golden share in US Steel, and then Intel and
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: then other you know, rare earth materials and quantum computing.
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: And would anybody be surprised if Trump organized a somehow,
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: government steak in a company is not. Granted, Trump is
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: not taking fifty percent, He's only taking like ten or
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: something like that. But you know, socialism and socialism the
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: government owning the means of production. It's true that Bernie
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: is more committed as socialist than Donald Trump. But this
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: is just on a spectrum. This is not absolute. This
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: is just you know, Trump is at ten plus percent,
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: bonies at fifty, maybe they can compromise them twenty five. Yeah,
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: this is and Trump was considering signing an executive voter,
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: which is luckily he did not creating government entity that
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: would control the models, so he doesn't need ownership in
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: order to control. So yeah, we're getting to the point
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: again where the difference between the left and the right
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: is not one stands for capitalism and therefore for no
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: government ownership of business, and now the stands for ownership
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: of business. The only difference between left and right is
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: the percentage ownership that they take. In American businesses. Pretty
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: pretty pretty pathetic really, all right? A story out of
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: the UK. We talked a lot about the lack of
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: free speech in the UK and generally in Europe and
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: just the growing the growth in that aspect. Well, here's
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: the story the British Museum, and I'm reading for the
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: Norsty Journal. British Museum postponed a public lecture scheduled for Wednesday.
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: This is last week on the Iron Age Kingdom of Israel.
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: Iron Age. It's like three thousand years ago right in
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: Iron Age Kingdoms of Israel in Judea. Less than twenty
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: four hours before it was due to start. I mean,
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: this is a pretty geeky lecture, right iron Age. The reason,
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: the museum said was security concerns. A significant proportion of
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: the registered attendees were individuals intending to deliberately disrupt the event.
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: God forbid, you talk about Israel ancient or modern, doesn't matter.
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: The lecture, to be given by Paul Hollins, who runs
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: the museum's Middle East Department, was planned as a highlight
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: of Britain's first ever Jewish Culture Month. So you can't
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: talk about Israel in a public event in Britain. Anymore
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: because instead of you know, I remember I go and
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: gave a talk at University of Ovine and it was
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: clear was going to be disrupted, disruptive and a bunch
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: of people who were signed up seemed like they were
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: going to be disruptive event and maybe even become violent.
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: And what happened was, you know, the Ovine police, the
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: campus police at uc Ovine let the Ovine police. U
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: see Ovine is an Irvine, No, And basically Ovine police
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: showed up and they basically had I don't know, they
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: are twenty cops, thirty cops, and yes, the disruption happened
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: and they were all arrested and that was it and ended.
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: And I continued to talk same thing happening in the
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: University of Texas Austin and gave a talk about Israel
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: was it two and a half years ago? And the
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: campus police showed up in mass and the result was
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: that yes, people disrupted, but they were taken out and
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: so were arrested, one of them suing the police. And
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: is still it's going to be it's still facing litigation,
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: but it was dealt with and the talk went up.
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: So in England they don't do that, No, if somebody
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: threatens to disrupt, they just can't silieve it. You don't
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: have free speech in England. You have free speech only
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: if nobody threatens to disrupt. The whole point of the police,
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: the whole point of the government, is to protect you
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: from those who would violate your freedom of your freedoms
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: and in this case, your freedom of speech. The job
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: of goverment is not to decide whether your speech is
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: good or bad. The job of the government is to
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: protect you from those who would stop you from speaking. Yeah,
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: I mean the British Museum was built on the idea
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: of the Enlightenment's faith and reason. Faith and reason. It
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: doesn't go right. That's the Wall Street Journal speaking and
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: it's a monument to liberal and democratic culture. Yet it's
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: surrendering in the face of barbarism. There would be protesters,
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: weren't rogue archaeologists looking to debate the dating of coins
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: and jewry. They land in ambush as part of continuing campaign
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: to delegitimize the modest state of Israel by denying a
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: suppressing the historical truth the Jewish people indigenous to the
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: event and the modern Israel stands on the same ground
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: as their sovereign states did in the ancient past. Not
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: that I think that gives them legitimacy to anything, you know,
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: So it really is stunning. Here's here's another one. I mean,
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: in aside town of Bonemouth, Bournemouth, a exhibit on the
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: local Jewish community's history, funded by the National Heritage Lottery
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: Fund was postponed, apparently permanently. How do you postpone something permanently?
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: After that Jewish man was shot with an air rifle
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: and the rabbi's home was vandalized. At last summer's Edinburgh Festival,
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: which also received state funding, two Jewish comedians had their
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: shows canceled after staff raised safety concerned. Oh my god.
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: The inaugural Jewish Culture Month was launched to counter this
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: kind of criminal intimidation and institutional weakness. The campaigned to
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: globalize the need to Fodda poses a problem to the
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: very foundations of free speech. And unless the police and
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: unless the government is willing to stand up against them,
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: then free speech loses all meaning, It fades, It phades.
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: Freedom generally fades when the threat of violence is succumb to.
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: It's just given into all right, Okay. The rest of
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: the news items all good news. I have good news
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: for you today. Today the human achievements section includes a
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: bunch of different things and some really good news. That's
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: I guess human achievement as well. So in twenty fifteen,
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: Baltimore arrests you know, and way down. Crime was way up,
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: and Baltimore became one of the one of the highest
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: murtive places in the country. But around twenty twenty two,
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: crime in Baltimore, most especially motors, began to fall. This
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: is from an article about this. In April, Baltimore had
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: four homicides, the lowest total of any single month since
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: at least nineteen seventy. Remember, Baltimore was the city in
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: which the wire takes place. So far this year there
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: were thirty eight, compared with fifty one in the same
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: period last year. At the count rate, Baltimore will end
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty six with fewer than one hundred one hundred homicides.
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: There were three hundred and twenty three just four years ago. Wow,
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: that's a drop of sixty six percent, almost seventy percent.
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: How did we get from a city in which the
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: question was how high can crime rise? To one way
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: the question is how can I how low can it go. Now,
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: the answer might be linked to the nationwide decline in
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: murder spurred by restoration a policing as excess as George
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: Floyd years receded. But that raises a question of what
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: cities across the country are actually doing right, So what's
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: caused this decline? Now we're not completely sure it really is,
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: you know, a hard to tell on a national scale,
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: but at least one person. Charles faine Lehman has a
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: story in The Free Press Berry Weiss's publication where he
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: is arguing that it basically boils down to what's called carrots,
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: sticks and the non random nature of murder. So think
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: about the non For example, carrots and sticks, I think
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: are relatively easy to understand, you know, increase police, you know,
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: be tough on on sentencing, and it will be more
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: engaged in the communities with with with carrots. But think
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: about the random, the fact that murders not random. A
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: significant subsets of murders are highly predictable. For example, a
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: gang member gets gunned down today, next week, you can
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: expect retaliation. Moreover, you know who is going to do
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: to do the murder, even more than you know who
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: is going to be murdered, namely, a close associate, a
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: fellow gang or family member of the guy who got
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: murdered will be the one doing the killing. Right, It's
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: not hard. So with this is mind, Baltimore, under a
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: new mayor and tough on crime prosecutor, began to intervene
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: in motorcycles Before it happened. They focused on deterrence programs
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: based on what's called the Boston's Operation Ceasefire. You can
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: look that up at what that is. The approach involves
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: a detailed investigation of every shooting that happens in the city.
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: Every week. The Baltimore Police Department and its partners review
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: the city's incidents for every shooting, and they prescribed reaching
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: out to known associates of the victim. At one recent
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: coordinated meeting, about twenty people gathered around the table of
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: a conference room at Baltimore's Docs and Ministries Church without Walls.
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: Under the direction of Reginald William from the Mayor's Office
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement. They talked through two new
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: referrals associated with a victim of a recent shooting. One
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: had a long co history and was on house arrest.
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: Another ballion adult was himself a victim a few years earlier.
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: Both men will have their doors knocked on by several
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: of the meeting's attendees. They will be offered services, job training,
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: tattoo removal, relocation, whatever they need to get out of
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: the life. But they will also get a clear message
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: delivered verbally and in the form of a letter from
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: Mayor Scott. Baltimore is watching them and we'll come after them.
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: So tough on crime, do the work, their homework, figure
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: out who the bad guys are. You know, most crime
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: is done by a very very very small number of people.
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: Follow through. Yeah, offer people ways out, but make clear
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: what the alternative is. So you know, we can delve
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: in a few to show delve into this process even
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: more and see how applicative is you know, across the
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: United States. But you know this is this is really
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: good news. Crime going down, particularly murder going down, is
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: without a doubt good news. So there's a story in
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: the Free Pass Why did the murders stop in Baltimore
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: twenty eighth and may check it out. It's good. It's interesting.
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: It's also interesting, right how this works, why it works,
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: where it works, and and you know a lot of
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: the increasing crime in the late twenty teens and then
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: during certainly during COVID after George Floyd is police department
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: getting away from this kind of stuff, getting away from
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: what's called the broken window, getting away from neighborhood policing,
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: not putting in US cuffs on the cups on the street,
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: getting away from being tough, getting away from follow through,
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: and getting away from doing the work, doing actual work.
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: And you know, so it looks like we know how
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: to get rid of in particular murder. We just need
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: to do it, Just do it. All right, here's a
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: great story. I mean, I've been waiting for this story. Right. So, Google, Google,
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: you know Google, the search Google, Google, Google is planning
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: to release thirty two million mosquitoes across Florida and California.
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: All Right, that I had to take a step back.
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: What the f Why is Google releasing mosquitoes? It turns
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: out Google has a biotech company that this is what
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: it does. The company has asked the EPA for permission
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: to proceed, with the public given until June fifth to respond.
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: The mosquitoes are infected with wallb wal but she bacteria,
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: which stops them from reproducing and slowly collapses the wild
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: population from within. Google's previous debug project trial in California
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: Central Valley nearly eliminated mosquitoes from three test sites entirely,
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: except for trial in Singapore. Cut Dan You fever, then
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: you fever is brutal. We have it here in Puerto Rico.
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: It cut then you by seventy percent within twelve months.
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: Google is now at leased over one billion, god one
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: billion mosquitoes across full continents. This new proposal is the
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: last largest deployment in US history, right, I mean, thirty
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: two million sounds like some kind of biblical swamp. But
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: remember here's some important facts. Because you're thinking, thirty two
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: million they're all going to bite me. No, these are
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: all males. Male mosquite don't bite. The bite the disease,
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: you know, all the females. So releasing thirty two million
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: mosquitoes does not increase biting. What actually happens is that
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: you know, this is by the way alphabets life science
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: arm very lie, very re lie. What actually happens is
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: they are targeting one species a this Egypti. It's a
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: sliver of the total mosquito population, but he carries then
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: you Zeka yellow FEVA and Chico. So it carries all
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: the diseases, and they see in hundreds of millions of
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: people a year around the world. This mosquito, this type
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: of mosquito, is the deadliest animal on earth, deadlier than
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: human beings and as and as the one and and
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: you know, so, so what do they do here. They
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: don't genetically modify. They infect the male with this bacteria,
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: and it's a bacteria that's already living in more than
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: half of all insects species. The the bacteria in the
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: in the male. When the male meets with the female
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: in the wild, the bacteria infects the female and her
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: eggs never hatch, and because the niggs never hatch, the
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: population collapses from inside. Now this is perfect. This is
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: a beautiful technique. And I hope they come to Puerto
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: Rico and get rid of the mosquitoes here. I mean,
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: mosquitos are band enough, but if they carry diseases, that's awful.
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: So get rid of those mosquitoes. It would be great,
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: just to get rid of mosquitos. I'm not a fan
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: of mosquitos more broadly, but certainly not the ones that
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: are like this. Yeah, if you can get rid of them,
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: all the power too, all right, So that's just a
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: little tech, human ingenuity, human achievement, ridding us of a pest,
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: the number one killer of human beings. You wouldn't have
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: guessed mosquitoes, right, And no genetic engineering, which people freak
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: out about. I'm all for geneeric engineering, but people freak
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: out about that. So it's just using a bacteria exist
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: in nature already, just applying it to mosquitoes. It's pretty amazing.
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: This is coming from Google, your friendly pest removal service,
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: and search engine and AI engine and advertising engine and
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: who knows what else. Oh, they own Waimo right, the
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: autonomous car, autonomous taxi, I mean just Google, all right.
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: More on the good news, More on the good news.
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: New Orleans, New Orleans is where okonn is going to
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: happen this year, so pay attention. New Orleans used to
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: have one of the worst educational systems in America. I mean,
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: before Hurricane Katrina, the system was a disaster. Over sixty
• 37:37
  Speaker 1: percent of New Orleans public schools were rated as failing.
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: Kids attendance was chaotic, dangerous, schools were constant disruptions and
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: had constant disruptions, and learning was impossible. You know, it
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: was just it was just a complete disaster and a mess.
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: What happened after Katrina is complete transformation. State took over
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: the worst schools and then they converted the entire district.
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: They converted the entire district to charter schools, in other words,
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: schools with independents or at least some independence. Now granted,
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: this is still state run, this is still the government.
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: I get it. Don't complain to me. This is not
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: pure private, I know, but it's an improvement. Kids are
• 38:30
  Speaker 1: getting an education. They converted the entire district to charter schools.
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: They eliminated neighborhood attendance zones and gave families real school choice.
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: Thousands of underperforming teachers and staff were fired WHOA, corruption
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: and low standards were confunded directly. It was radical, Oh,
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: I mean, not as radical as I would want, but radical,
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: and it worked. Right now in your Orleans they have
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: zero failing schools. Remember it was sixty percent. Ninety two
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: percent of schools now rated AOB. The districts earn its
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: highest ever grade as a district a B, and the
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: gains survived the pandemic and they keep climbing. There's competition
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: between the charter schools and parents can send their kids
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: to any school and they are. You know, there is real,
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: real change. Kids are getting an education. It's not perfect.
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: Far for perfect, perfect would be private. I'll take kids
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: getting a better education than getting a worse education. Now,
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: what drove the turnaround Autonomy for schools to innovate the
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: charter network. Accountability, Bad charter schools can be closed quickly,
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: family choice instead of forced neighborhood attendance, so parents can
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: move their kids out of failing schools into good schools.
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: More instruction time, sixteen extra days of reading and six
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: extra days of math per year, sustained focus on results
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: over bureaucracy and excuses. So again, I'm sure it's far
• 40:30
  Speaker 1: from ideal, but hey, you take one of the worst
• 40:34
  Speaker 1: school districts in the country and turn it around, you
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: get thumbs up for me. If you provide schools with autonomy, accountability,
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: and competition, and you give parents choice, things get better.
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: You know how things get even better is you completely
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: privatize them. That's too radical for the world right now,
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: I'll advocate for it, you'll advocate for it. But in
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: the meantime, this is better than nothing. It's better than failure.
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: All right, let's see what do I have here? Yeah,
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: So last story, this is really a story that we've
• 41:20
  Speaker 1: been talking about. We talked about all last week, but
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: Derek Thompson has a tweet that I think capture is
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: kind of the atmosphere. So there was a conference over
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: the weekend. It was the big oncology conference. This is
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: the big cancer conference. Cancer doctors, cancer researchers. They get together,
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: and Derek Thompson, who writes a lot about progress, summed
• 41:45
  Speaker 1: it up as this has quietly been a miracle month
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: in medicine. In the last five weeks. We've got news
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: on retatitude tid Tide Tide, the agnostic gop one from
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: Lily basically melting fat, and body wide inflammation at record levels.
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: Rev Med's new pancretic cancer drug showing unprecedented abilities to
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: extend life, small trial of a one and done PCSK
• 42:19
  Speaker 1: nine gene editing, the therapy we've talked about all of these,
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: for slashing LDL cholesterol, MAYO clinics, AI assisted radiology showing
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: vastly improved cancer detection, and a new therapy for metastatic
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: tumor solid tumors. He writes, this stuff at varying levels
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: of evidence. The gop one is one hundred percent on
• 42:49
  Speaker 1: its way. Other stuff needs more clinical trial data. But
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: put it together and we're maybe on the verge of
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: a major of majorly reducing the mortality of heart disease
• 43:00
  Speaker 1: and cancer, the two leading causes of death in America.
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: This is another tweet. So today it shows a video
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: from this oncology conference that happened this weekend, and it's
• 43:16
  Speaker 1: of the doctors in this session giving the presenter a
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: standing ovation. And this is a standing ovation for that
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: is the sound of a standing ovation. This is a
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: standing ovation for Dragson recib over forty thousand oncologists, entrepreneurs, investors,
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: and patient advocates together suburb celebrating rev Men's breakthrough in
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: the fight against pancreatic cancer. I mean somebody who wrote,
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: I've never been at a medical conference where the results
• 43:55
  Speaker 1: are being greeted with a standing ovation, tremendous break through
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: and patriotic cancer treatment through science, hard work, rigorous search,
• 44:05
  Speaker 1: clinical trials, science, not quack pseudoscience or social media. Real science,
• 44:12
  Speaker 1: real evidence, real trials, not give everybody of ivermictin and
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: forget about it. Right, this is the real stuff. Progress
• 44:22
  Speaker 1: is really really being made. So yeah, now, somebody wrote,
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: somebody wrote, this will be the last comment I'm making.
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: Then we'll move to nuclear. Somebody wrote, oh, if you're
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: under fifty, you're likely to live to be one hundred
• 44:41
  Speaker 1: and fifty. Just stay healthy, just don't don't get releasing,
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: And Derek Thompson wrote a post in response to that,
• 44:47
  Speaker 1: which I thought was very good, And I'll just read
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: you this because because it's really good. I think we're
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: on the verge of a golden age in cardio metabolic health.
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: Thanks GLP ones and oncology CRT, DESO ASSIB checkpoint inhibitors,
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: and don't forget the don't forget the mRNA vaccines for cancer.
• 45:10
  Speaker 1: But let's be real about what average life spans in
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: the hundreds would require. Right, So, for all of you
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: who are getting real excited about living to be one
• 45:18
  Speaker 1: hundred and fifty, the oldest document person, the oldest documented
• 45:23
  Speaker 1: person died twenty nine years ago, Gene Kalman, at one
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: hundred and twenty two years old. In thirty years, with
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: all the advances in medicine, nobody else has even gotten
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: to one hundred and twenty a life expancency of one
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: hundred and ten would require about twenty five percent of
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: women to live longer than Clement, and about six percent
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: of women to live past one hundred and fifty, three
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: decades older than the record. This isn't even close to happening. Yet,
• 45:57
  Speaker 1: not even close. The good news is we are getting
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: better and better at eliminating death before eighty. We're not
• 46:05
  Speaker 1: yet getting any better at extending life beyond one hundred
• 46:09
  Speaker 1: and ten. Doing so will probably require advances that have
• 46:13
  Speaker 1: nothing to do with gop ones and cancer therapies. You
• 46:17
  Speaker 1: basically need to build new bodies for humans or rejuvenate
• 46:22
  Speaker 1: the cells that we have right now. But you know,
• 46:27
  Speaker 1: so we're less likely to die before eighty, which means
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: we're more likely to live to be ninety and one hundred,
• 46:35
  Speaker 1: But almost nobody lives to be over one hundred and ten,
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: and the biology of that is probably not changing. People
• 46:41
  Speaker 1: who die at one hundred and ten don't typically die
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: of I mean, the bodies just it just you know,
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: the dying of bodily failure, not of typical heart disease
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: or typical cancer. So we need more, we need more,
• 46:57
  Speaker 1: but still super citing, really really cool work. You know.
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: I'm excited about being able to keep you updated about
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: all these innovations and good work and all the great
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: doctors and healthcare professionals and scientists that are out there,
• 47:21
  Speaker 1: you know, doing the work to make this happen. This
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: doesn't just happen. Science just doesn't advance. It advances because
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: these people, you know, do amazing work. And one of
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: the great evils of the post COVID era is how
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: so many people have turned against doctors, against science, against
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: scientists in the name of I don't know, quackery, all right,
• 47:57
  Speaker 1: Proto says in the Bible Adam lived to nine hundred
• 47:59
  Speaker 1: and thirty and Methusda lived a record nine hundred sixty nine. Well, God,
• 48:04
  Speaker 1: we know that everything written in the Bible is absolutely true,
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: absolutely without question true. Even the hypersupa unbelievably religious Jews
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: don't believe that. They think that a year back then
• 48:18
  Speaker 1: meant a little different than a year today. Yeah, anyway,
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: but that's uh yeah, I mean the sun stopped because
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: the circles the earth. The sun stopped to allow Joshua
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: to finish up the battle and win it. In the
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: Bible as well, so stopping the sun is also possible.
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: And by the way the sun goes around the Earth
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: in the Bibles legal all right, that, my friends, is
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: the news for this man Monday, June first. A lot
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: of good news, a lot of good news, so I
• 48:50
  Speaker 1: hope you appreciate that. All right, So the final segments,
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: and I've got a lot to say about this, so
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: this will be a while. This is a segment. It
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: was sponsored by Richard, so thank you Richard. And Richard
• 49:04
  Speaker 1: is here because he's already done a super check question.
• 49:07
  Speaker 1: On top of the sponsorship, let me remind you, guys
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: that we have goals two hundred and fifty dollars being
• 49:18
  Speaker 1: an hour being being the goal. We're almost at the
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: end of the first hour and we're about seventy bucks
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: short of our first hour goal. Let's please try to
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: keep up. You can ask questions on anything nuclear or
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: anything else, or the news or anything, and you know,
• 49:35
  Speaker 1: ideally questions twenty dollars and fifty dollars twenty bunch of
• 49:39
  Speaker 1: twenty dollars are great because we can really make progress
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: in attaining our goal that way, So please consider making
• 49:47
  Speaker 1: those contributions. I know that you know Richard sponsored the show,
• 49:50
  Speaker 1: so but still have to still have to fund the
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: actual time of the show, So keep the questions. Co
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: We've done okay, but we still show seventy dollars and
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: we've got nine minutes to get the seventy dollars. You
• 50:05
  Speaker 1: can also do a stick up, don't have to ask
• 50:07
  Speaker 1: a question, and that way you don't have to worry
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: about a question, but you can still show your support
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: for the show and trade value for value me delivering
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: you appreciating with a check. All right, So today we're
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: going to talk about in nuclear energy, and we're not
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: going to just talk about it as an energy issue
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: because it's not primarily an energy issue. It's a philosophical issue,
• 50:31
  Speaker 1: a model issue, a political issue. It's an issue about
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: what kind of world do we want to live in.
• 50:36
  Speaker 1: It's an issue about kind of the civilization and whether
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: it can continue. It's not just should we build more
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: nuclear power plants, but what kind of world do we
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: want to live in? Do we want to live in
• 50:51
  Speaker 1: a world of abundance of industry, technology, growth, confidence and
• 50:59
  Speaker 1: a confidence in the future, or do we want to
• 51:02
  Speaker 1: live in a world of fear or the rationing of permission,
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: of bureaucratic paralysis, and filled with environmental guilt. And just
• 51:18
  Speaker 1: to be clear, I mean nuclear energy is one of
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: mankind's greatest achievements. It is the human mind discovering the
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: power inside matter and turning that power into electricity, heat, industry, medicine,
• 51:31
  Speaker 1: comfort life. We and you know I'm taking collective credit,
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: I guess, but we human beings, a human being, a
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: set of human beings figured out how to split the atom.
• 51:45
  Speaker 1: That is amazing. We understand the structure of nature to
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: such a profound level that we can use that knowledge
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: to transform human life. It is a beautiful, amazing, magnificent thing.
• 52:03
  Speaker 1: In America today, nuclear powers being treated not to an
• 52:06
  Speaker 1: achievement to be celebrated, but a danger to contain, a
• 52:12
  Speaker 1: sin to be apologized, to apologize for, a threat to
• 52:17
  Speaker 1: be regulated into near oblivion, near impossibility. So today we're
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: going to talk about the past, the present, the future
• 52:27
  Speaker 1: of nuclear energy and how America pioneered it, crippled it,
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: and what it's going to take in order to liberate it.
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: To be clear, nuclear energy didn't fail. America failed nuclear
• 52:50
  Speaker 1: energy and it's America. Not just America, it's Germany, it's
• 52:55
  Speaker 1: the UK, it's but it's America. We didn't lose the
• 53:01
  Speaker 1: nuclear because of the physics failed. We did not lose
• 53:04
  Speaker 1: nuclear because engineering failed. We did not lose nuclear because
• 53:08
  Speaker 1: the technology could not work, or because it was not safe,
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: or because we didn't know what to do with the material,
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: you know, the the leftover material. None of that is true.
• 53:23
  Speaker 1: We lost nuclear because we buried it under fear, pseudo science, environmentalism, litigation,
• 53:29
  Speaker 1: regulatory uncertainty, and in a sense, worse of all, a
• 53:34
  Speaker 1: permission based view of human life. You need permission to innovate,
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: to grow, to succeed. We turned to build him into
• 53:43
  Speaker 1: a suspect. We turned the engineer into a defendant, energy
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: into something morally suspicious because it's nuclear. Fear. Fear came
• 53:58
  Speaker 1: to dominate the entire discussion and debate. So let's look
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: at you know, uh who, what has happened? I mean,
• 54:21
  Speaker 1: you know, let's let's let's be clear. I mean, nuclear
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: energy is a phenomena, phenomenon source of energy, and energy
• 54:31
  Speaker 1: is of course necessive human life and human progress, and
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: for human for economic success, and for for you know.
• 54:38
  Speaker 1: Nuclear is dense, A tiny amount of fuel produces enormous
• 54:43
  Speaker 1: amounts of electricity. It's reliable, it runs day and night.
• 54:47
  Speaker 1: Think of that. Don't require the sun to shine or
• 54:50
  Speaker 1: the wind to blow. It's scalable. It can power cities, factories,
• 54:55
  Speaker 1: data centers, advanced industries. It has a small physical footprint
• 54:59
  Speaker 1: relative to the energy it produces. If your standard is
• 55:04
  Speaker 1: human flourishing, nuclear energy is an obvious good. That's the key.
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: If your standard is human flowishing. On the other hand,
• 55:17
  Speaker 1: if your standard is untouched nature, if your standard is
• 55:20
  Speaker 1: minimizing human impact, if your standard is sacrifice, if your
• 55:25
  Speaker 1: standard is fear, then nuclear becomes threatening precisely because it works.
• 55:33
  Speaker 1: It makes abundance possible. It makes industrial civilization cleaner, more powerful,
• 55:40
  Speaker 1: and more resilient. I mean, nuclear really does expose the
• 55:48
  Speaker 1: environmentalist movement for what it really is. For decades, environmentalists
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: have told us that the carbon emission is an existential crisis.
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: Not true, but okay. If that is what you believe,
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: nuclear should be your favorite energy source. Reliable, scalable, and
• 56:06
  Speaker 1: super low in carbon. But most most environmentalists oppose it anyway.
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: They oppose it anyway why because to them, the real
• 56:19
  Speaker 1: goal is not clean abundance. They hate abundance. The real
• 56:24
  Speaker 1: goal is less human impact, less energy, less industry, less growth,
• 56:29
  Speaker 1: less human transformation of nature, which is human transformation of
• 56:33
  Speaker 1: nature is the way human beings survive, so it's less
• 56:36
  Speaker 1: human life. Nuclear energy is hated by environmentalists not because
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: it fails, but because it succeeds. It offers mankind abundance
• 56:52
  Speaker 1: with almost no you know, with no pollution. It offers
• 56:57
  Speaker 1: us abundance. We have to abundance, a path to energy abundance,
• 57:06
  Speaker 1: which means industrial and wealth abundance. So let's look at
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: what happened. Again, this is a quick overview in a sense.
• 57:18
  Speaker 1: There's that you can really dig really, really deep here.
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: So let's look at the past. America's once the leader
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: in nuclear power. We pioneered commercial nuclear energy. We had
• 57:38
  Speaker 1: the technology, we had the engineers, we had the utilities,
• 57:40
  Speaker 1: the industrial base, and we had the confidence to build.
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: In the nineteen sixties and the nineteen seventies early nineteen seventies,
• 57:49
  Speaker 1: nuclear power was not viewed as some impossible, exotic, unfinanciable,
• 57:54
  Speaker 1: financiable technology. It was viewed as the future of energy
• 58:00
  Speaker 1: see the future of Electricity. Utilities ordered hundreds of reactors.
• 58:06
  Speaker 1: Serious projections imagine hundreds of gigawatts of nuclear capacity, even
• 58:12
  Speaker 1: more than a thousand gigowotes by the year two thousand
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: and It was not a fantasy in the way people
• 58:20
  Speaker 1: only think today. It was an exploration. Sorry, it was
• 58:28
  Speaker 1: extrapolation from what was actually going on, from an actual
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: industrial trend. The industry was learning, plans were being built,
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: costs were expected to fall because repetition and expertise and
• 58:45
  Speaker 1: know how. It's the same logic in every successful industrial technology.
• 58:51
  Speaker 1: Build the first one, then the next, then the next,
• 58:54
  Speaker 1: standardize train workers built supply chains because of experienced construction teams,
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: improve methods, repeat, and the design moved down the learning curve.
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: By the way, this is how China does it. If
• 59:07
  Speaker 1: somebody wants to ask a question about China and nuclear,
• 59:11
  Speaker 1: go ahead. This is how China does it. Exactly this way.
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: Build build, build, train, keep, keep the construction teams, improved methods, repeat, repeat, repeat,
• 59:21
  Speaker 1: and prices come down down down. I mean, that's how
• 59:26
  Speaker 1: airplanes became cheap and safer. It's how cars became cheaper
• 59:29
  Speaker 1: and better. It's how semiconductors advanced. It's our natural gas
• 59:34
  Speaker 1: turbines improved. Every every industrial technology mature is in this way.
• 59:43
  Speaker 1: You have to do it, experiment, try it in some
• 59:47
  Speaker 1: cases even fail, but learn Learn, Learn developed the expertise,
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: and indeed nuclear was on that path in the late
• 59:57
  Speaker 1: nineteen sixties and nuclear power plant cost roughly seven hundred
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: dollars per kilo OTT of capacity in inflation adjusted terms.
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 1: Many of these plants were built in four to five years.
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 1: The industry was scaling and the future was clear in
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: terms of where it was, you know what people thought,
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 1: where people thought it was heading. Now. Obviously, not every
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: early nuclear pop plant took three to four years. Some
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: project were very fast. But the stronger point is the trend.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: Before the late nineteen seventies regulatory spiral, nuclear construction was
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 1: far faster, more economically plausible than it became later. Then,
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 1: in the nineteen seventies, America made a fatal choice. Not
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 1: one single vote or one dramatic event, but through a
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 1: series of regulatory decisions that compounded over a decade, America
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: systematically destroyed the kunam of nuclear power. By the mid
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 1: nineteen seventies, NUCA construction had risen to three thousand, one
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 1: hundred perkiloette. That's more than four times construction times doubled,
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 1: then tripled costs of iran, and that became the norm
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 1: By the time the Vogtal units three and four came
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: online in Georgia just recently, the cost had reached roughly
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 1: eight thousand parkiloett inflation adjusted, and construction had taken over
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: fourteen years from four to fourteen. Now, the technology did
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: not get worse, The physics didn't change, The engines not
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 1: forget how to the engineers did not forget how to
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 1: build things. What change was the regulatory environment and it
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 1: was not an accident. And what else happened, which is
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 1: super important, is the learning curve was killed. And this
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 1: is a real tragedy. When people talk about canceled nuclear plants,
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: they often talk about them as missing electricity exists, he
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 1: is not there, and that's true. But each canceled plant
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 1: was much more than that. Each canceled plant was one
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 1: missing data point on a learning curve, one missing trained crew,
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 1: one missing project manager, one missing supplier relationship, one missing
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 1: construction lesson, one missing design improvement, one missing generation of
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 1: nuclear competence knowing how to build these things. The strategy
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 1: tragedy is not just that America failed to build hundreds
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: of nuclear plants. The tragedy is that America abandoned the
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 1: learning curve at the moment it was about to compound.
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: Instead of pricing getting lower and getting faster, things got
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 1: slower and more expensive. Imagine if we had stopped building
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 1: airplanes in nineteen thirty five and then try to restart
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: the aviation industry in nineteen seventy five. The first airplanes
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 1: would be expensive. The workforce would be gone, the supply
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 1: chain would be gone, the institutional knowledge would be gone,
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 1: and then critics would say, see, airplanes are too expensive.
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 1: Technology does not work. So let's put numbers to this.
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's staggering. Today the US has ninety four
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 1: operating reactors. Ninety four they produced about ninety seven gigawatts
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 1: of nuclear capacity. We have roughly one tenth of what
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 1: we were on track to build. The Department of Energy's
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: nineteen seventy two most likely projection was nine hundred and
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 1: eighty giowatts. By the year two thousand, we're in twenty
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: twenty six nine eighty. That's ten x the gigowots twenty
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 1: six years ago. The high case was one thy four
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 1: hundred and seventy gigawatts. The minimum scenario assumed seven hundred
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 1: and eighty five gigaots. America hit a peak of one
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 1: hundred and twelve reactors in nineteen ninety and then flatlined.
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 1: We'd been roughly one hundred gigawatts and a little less
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 1: for thirty five years. Everything after that has been cancellations, retirements, paralysis.
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 1: The canceled capacity number so remember ten x twenty six
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 1: years ago, so maybe another five x since then, I
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 1: don't know. The cancer capacity number is the one that
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 1: should haunt everyone. Per Global Energy Monitor, the US canceled
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy two gigawatts of nuclear capacity. That's
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 1: nucle capacity was already built. That's more than all the
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: nuclear power America has ever operated, retired, and planned for
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 1: the future combined. So this is were canceled. Things that
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 1: were planned to be building canceled. We canceled more nuclear
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: energy than we ever built. That's insane. Now, what would
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 1: the counter factor America look like? A twenty twenty four
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 1: Mid Northwestern Northwestern University study try to quantify it. If
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 1: the US had stayed on the pre three minor island trajectory,
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: it would have avoided roughly two point three million premature
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 1: deaths fifty five tons of CO two emissions. Now, they
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 1: probably overestimate the impact of the negative impact of Seal
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 1: two and fourteen trillion in health costs. So you know,
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: I'm skeptical of those numbers, particularly of the deaths and
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 1: the health, because they overestimate the impact of Seal two.
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 1: Negative impact of Seal two. The electricity good today would
• 1:06:23
  Speaker 1: be almost carbon free. We wouldn't be building solar and
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: wind what's fall what full We'd have industrial scale, reliable
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: base load power built by engineers who knew what they
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 1: were doing. Fans, frans of all places, which did not
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 1: lose its nerve. You can ask me why later again,
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 1: Good super chet question gets roughly seventy percent of its
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 1: electricity from nuclear. The US gets nineteen percent. That gap
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 1: between Fans and America between ninety seven gigawats and nine
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 1: hundred and eighty gigoots is not a technology gap. It's
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 1: a philosophical gap. It's a policy gap. It's what happens
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 1: when you let fear, dressed up as regulation, make the
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 1: decisions engineers should have made. People are poorer. America is
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 1: poor making people are poorer because we abandon nuclear energy.
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 1: All right, So what made nuclear expensive? How did it
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 1: become so expensive that today it's almost impossible to build
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 1: nuclear poplands. It's not profitable. Standard answer is nuclear is
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 1: technically complex. Well, yeah, it's technically complex, but is that
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 1: really an explanation. I mean, what isn't technically complex? Their planes, semiconductors,
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 1: deep water oil platforms, LNG, fracking, skyscrapers, pipelines all complex.
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 1: Why didn't you clear become uniquely slow, uniquely expensive, uniquely
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 1: legally paralyzed, really unique among American industries. The answer is regulation,
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 1: but not just too many rules, really really really really
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: really bad ones. It's the kind of regulatory standards applied
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 1: to nuclear Irregulatory standards for nuclear are a regime built
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 1: on fear, on hypothetical risk, and an unlimited burden of proof.
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 1: Two ideas especially importance. They're abbreviated is L and T
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 1: an A L A R A. Let's start with L
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 1: and T. By the way, a lot of this you
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 1: could find a lot of this content you can find
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 1: in alex Epstein. Epstein's congressional testimony and nuclear energy that
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 1: he did. And if you own alex Ai, you can
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 1: get a lot of this from alex Ai. L and
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 1: T stance linear, no threshold. It's the idea that any
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 1: literally any dose of radiation, no matter how small, carry
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 1: some risk of harm. There is no threshold below which
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 1: exposure is treated as safe. This is the Nuclear Regulatory
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 1: Commission's foundational assumption about radiation safety. It holds that there's
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 1: no safe dose of radiation, no matter how small. Remember,
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 1: you're constantly getting radiation from your environment everywhere you go.
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 1: There's no such thing as no radiation. Any radiation exposure,
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 1: even at levels indistinguishable from the background radiation you absorbed
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 1: by walking outside, is treated as proportionally dangerous to human health. Now,
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 1: the model was not derived from low dose experimental data,
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 1: so there's no experimental data showing the really really really
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 1: low doses of radiation cause health problems. It's extrapolated downward
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 1: from high dose exposure studies, specifically the Hero and Humor
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 1: bomb survivor data. On the bare mathematical assumption, the danger
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 1: is linear all the way to zero. Bomb survivors exposed
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 1: a massive acute dose as a radiation suffered elevated cancer rates.
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 1: Lent assumed that if you have the dose, you have
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 1: the risk, and if you have it again and again
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 1: until the dose is trivially small, there is calves and
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 1: with it all the way to zero exposure. But there
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: was no experimental basis for this assumption at low doses.
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: It's a mathematical convenience dressed up as science. And of
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 1: course I'll remind you this is straight out of the
• 1:11:29
  Speaker 1: precautionary principle. This idea that if you do something new,
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 1: you have to prove the burden on you is to
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 1: prove that it's one hundred percent safe that it will
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 1: cause no damage. That's ridiculous. What do actual radiation health
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 1: experts think? Only three percent believe L and T is
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 1: accurate at low doses. Per survey cited by Alex Alex's
• 1:11:57
  Speaker 1: congressional testimony. Twenty three percent think the evidence is inconclusive
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 1: at low doses, which is profoundly different than saying all
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 1: doses are dangerous. The practical result, L and T set
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 1: the public radiation dose limit at least fifty times stricter
• 1:12:14
  Speaker 1: than what the science actually justifies. Every system in every
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 1: nuclear powplant had to be over engineered to meet the standard.
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 1: There was not grounded in reality. That had nothing to
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 1: do with the facts, nothing to do with the science.
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 1: Now add to L and T. Add to that, aler
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 1: Allara I guess low as low as reasonably achievable. That's
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 1: what it stands for, as low as reasonably achievable. Alright,
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: sounds reasonable, right? Who could be against keeping way exposure low?
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 1: But the reality is that ALLAARA functions as a ratchet.
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 1: There's no clear stopping point. You do not simply meet
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 1: a rational safety standard and then build. Instead, you expected
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 1: to keep reducing exposure further and further as long as
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 1: someone can argue that another expense is reasonable most shielding,
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 1: more paperwork, more design changes, more procedures, more mitigation, more delay,
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 1: more costs. The standard becomes never stop paying for pseudo safety.
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 1: A rational safety standard says, identify the actual risk, establish
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 1: an objective threshold, require objective mitigation, and once the stand
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 1: is met, production proceeds. The nuclear regulatory standard often says,
• 1:13:48
  Speaker 1: assume harm. This is the percaution principle, Demand proof of
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 1: no harm, precaution neary principle, entertain every hypothetical objection precautionary principle,
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 1: and never let the producers say enough, we are safe,
• 1:14:05
  Speaker 1: we can build now. This is not science. This is
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 1: just pure fear and antagonism, antagonism to progress. This is
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 1: not technology. It's a rejection of an epistemology, a building,
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 1: the consistent places to building, a proof of the producer.
• 1:14:33
  Speaker 1: The business must prove that it is not cause harm,
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 1: which is impossible. You cannot prove a negative to every
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 1: conceivable objection. There's always another what if, another model, another activist,
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 1: and another lawsuit, another agency question, another request for more information.
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 1: It's an inversion of America, an inversion of what it
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 1: means to be an American. The American principle, the pop
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 1: up principle in America is a presumption of innocence, your
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: fee to act unless the government can demonstrate that you
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 1: are violating rights opposing an objective threat of harm, an
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 1: objective threat to those rights. But in the modern regulatory state,
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 1: the producer is presumed guilty. The builder must beg it
• 1:15:24
  Speaker 1: for permission, The engineer must prove harmlessness. The investor must
• 1:15:32
  Speaker 1: wait while the agency decides where the production we proceed.
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 1: This isn't obviously capitalism. It's a permission based statism. Now
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 1: note the secularity of what follows, and this should be command.
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 1: Regulators made nuclear expensive through pseudo scientific standards. Then critics
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: pointed out, pointed to those costs and declared nuclear economically unviable.
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 1: Then regulators cited the lack of new construction as proof
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 1: that nuclear was not working. They built the trap, pushed
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 1: the industry into it, and then blamed the industry for
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 1: not for being trapped. Think about the American spirit. The
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 1: Empire State building was completed in just over a year. Pipelines, railroads, factories, bridges, skyscrapers.
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 1: America used to build, not perfectly, not always under a
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: fully free system, not but culturally there was still a
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 1: presumption that builders had a right to build, and the
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 1: building was good. The gap between idea and execution was short.
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 1: Today you can't build. It takes longer to get permission
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 1: to build than it once took to build, a lot longer.
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 1: Now that's a fundamental change in what America is. Old
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 1: America you are free to act, and if you violate
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 1: somebody's rights, you will be held accountable. Modern America says
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 1: you may not act until you prove in advance, and
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 1: nothing bad will ever happen. Now these are completely radical,
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: different systems, a different sense of life, a different mentality,
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 1: a different way of thinking about the world and thinking
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 1: about progress. One is a civilization of producers, to other
• 1:17:33
  Speaker 1: a civilization are permission seekers. Of bureaucrats. Nuclear is the
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 1: clearest victim of that transformation. Now there's another issue that
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 1: does not get anenough attention that we should talk about
• 1:17:52
  Speaker 1: because we're trying to be comprehensive here, and that is
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 1: the structure of electricity markets. Utilities were structured in the
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: nineteen sixties. Its vitally integrated kind of monopolies. They were
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 1: granted monopoly powered by the government. They had a geographic
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 1: area and there was no competition. It was not capitalism.
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 1: It was a regulated monopoly. Now that model was bad,
• 1:18:29
  Speaker 1: but it was compatible with building nuclear power plants and
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 1: more compatible than what we have today, which is a fragmented, restructed,
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 1: reregulated electricity market. Some people think that what we have
• 1:18:41
  Speaker 1: today is a deregulated market. No, no, no, it's a
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 1: reregulated market. A UCLAP pop plant is a massive, capital intensive,
• 1:18:51
  Speaker 1: long duration asset. You need a normous sum stuff fund.
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 1: The plant takes years to build. Since it's operating, can
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 1: produce huge amounts of electricity for decades, but the payback
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 1: period can be long. That means the financing structure matters enormously.
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: Under the older vertically integrated utility model, utility could own
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 1: generation transmission, distribution, and retail service. It could plan over decades.
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 1: It could finance a nuclear plant with the expectation that
• 1:19:22
  Speaker 1: prudently incurring costs could be recovered through the rate base.
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 1: Then since then, many states have restructed electricity markets not deregulated.
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 1: Restructured generation was separated from distribution. Merchant generators had to
• 1:19:45
  Speaker 1: sell into competitive wholesale markets. Future electricity prices became uncertain.
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: Nuclear developers developers now face not only regulator risk, construction risk,
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: litigation risk, and political risk, but also the merchant power
• 1:19:58
  Speaker 1: price risk. It's a deadly combination. It's why Vagtol, this
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 1: latest nuclear pop plant expansion in Georgia matters. Vogtel was expensive, late,
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 1: and a cautionary retail in many ways, but it was completed,
• 1:20:13
  Speaker 1: and it was completed in a traditionally regulated utility environment,
• 1:20:17
  Speaker 1: not a pure merchant market. Now, the lesson is not
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 1: go back to the monopolies model. The lesson is we
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 1: have to get rid of anti trust and let real
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 1: markets work. Nuclear requires a financing model that matches the
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 1: nature of the assets in a free market. That would
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 1: mean property rights, long term contracts, which are made impossible
• 1:20:47
  Speaker 1: by anti trust. In regulations. It means private capital, insurance,
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 1: voluntary power purchase agreements, the freedom firms, the integrate generation, transmission, distribution,
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 1: and reach out. If that is economically efficient to structure
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 1: the industry in ways that make sense, not to the
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 1: central planner, not to the regulator, but to the market
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 1: in today's mixed economy. At a very minimum, we should
• 1:21:16
  Speaker 1: stop forcing nuclear into market structures that make long duration
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 1: capital and investment irrational. Regulation make nuclear uniquely risky and
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 1: expensive market restructuring. Then remove the financial model, the financing
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 1: model that could absorb that risk. The two problems compound
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 1: each other. All right, interesting stuff. No, I see, Richard
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 1: is engaged with the rest of you. Richard is doing
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: all the questions. You guys have no questions nothing. Everything's clear,
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 1: you know everything. All right. Let's step step back a second,
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 1: and let's take a look at China. China's building nuclear
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 1: pop plants. It's actually using an American design, the AP
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 1: one thousand. It's a Westinghouse technology. China is demonstrating the
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 1: exact principle America abandoned the value of repetition. The first
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 1: AP one thousand projects in China had first of a
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 1: kind difficulties. Of course they did right. That is what
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 1: happens with first of a kind projects. But China kept building.
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 1: It's standardized, It localized the supply chain, It maintained institutional continuity,
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 1: It repeated the design. This is how learning coves work.
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 1: You don't become good at building Nuka pop plants by
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 1: issuing white papers. You become good by building UCLA Poplins
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 1: America by contact built Vogul three and four. After decades
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 1: of atrophy. The workplace had to be rebuilt, The supply
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 1: chains had to be rebuilt, the contract had to relearn.
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 1: The regulators had to process a project in environment that
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 1: had been that they had not seen in a more
• 1:23:24
  Speaker 1: than a generation. So Voga was expensive. But the right
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 1: conclusion is not AP one thousand failed. The right conclusion
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: is this is what happens when you kill in an
• 1:23:34
  Speaker 1: industry and then try to restart it after a generation.
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 1: The next EIGHTP one thousands will be cheaper. The next
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 1: after that chapter still will be still cheaper, but only
• 1:23:46
  Speaker 1: if we actually build them. The learning curve does not
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 1: exist in speeches. It exists in concrete steel, welders, workers, suppliers,
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 1: project managers, and repetition repetition repetition now, right now, there's
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 1: a real debate going on in America as the Trumpet
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 1: administrations see to be more friendly towards nuclear Should the
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 1: nuclear future be small modular reactors or proven large reactors
• 1:24:16
  Speaker 1: like the EP one thousands. It seems like the answer is,
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 1: or should be first, let's experiment. But let's build the
• 1:24:27
  Speaker 1: EP one thousands. We know we can, we know they work,
• 1:24:30
  Speaker 1: we know they scale, and in parallel, let's build their
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 1: SMRs and experiment and see how they work and where
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 1: they work and where they add value. Small modular reactors
• 1:24:43
  Speaker 1: are valuable. They're useful for remote communities, military bases, data centers,
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 1: data centers, yeah, industrial heat mining sites, small grids. They
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 1: may eventually benefit from factory production and modular repetition. Can
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 1: see building a few of them here in Puerto Rico
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 1: where you don't want long what do you call it
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 1: to elexisity? Why is because lines, because transmission lines, because
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 1: of hurricanes. You want the pop plane to be very
• 1:25:14
  Speaker 1: close to the consumer. She build a few of them
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 1: close to where the population is. But small modular reactors
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 1: are our magic. A small reactor built once is still
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 1: first of a kind. It still needs licensing, it still
• 1:25:34
  Speaker 1: needs fuel, It still needs consumers customers, It still needs financing,
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 1: It still needs manufacturing capacities, It still needs a learning curve.
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 1: The first one will be expense second one cheaper, and
• 1:25:47
  Speaker 1: so on. The danger is that we use SMRs as
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 1: an excuse small modular reactors not to build proven large
• 1:25:59
  Speaker 1: react We may say, let's wait for the perfect new technology.
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 1: Let's wait for the next design. Let's wait for the
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 1: smaller reactors, the cheaper reactor, the more politically acceptable reactor.
• 1:26:11
  Speaker 1: Let's wait for what is somebody who was thorium, Let's
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 1: wait for thorium reactors. But that's how you never build,
• 1:26:24
  Speaker 1: build what you know, an experiment On the side, the
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 1: right approach is to build prove it large reactors now,
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 1: especially standardized designs like the AP one thousand. This is
• 1:26:35
  Speaker 1: what China is doing while allowing SMRs and other tech. Hey,
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 1: you know, maybe we'll have a fusion reactor soon to
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 1: develop in parallel where they have general genuine use cases.
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 1: Don't wait for the perfect reactor. Build a good reactor,
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 1: Build it again and again and again. Get cheaper, more efficient,
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 1: more productive. Now you might ask, what would what would
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 1: a free market regulatory system look like I mean, nuclear
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 1: actors are risky. I guess how would you regulate them
• 1:27:23
  Speaker 1: in a pure free market. So, first of all, it's
• 1:27:27
  Speaker 1: not going to look like the modern ministry of state
• 1:27:29
  Speaker 1: at all. In a pure free market, the government does
• 1:27:32
  Speaker 1: not centrally plan energy. It does not decide which technologies
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 1: are needed. It does not hand out permission, slips or production.
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 1: The government's job is to protect individual rights. That's it.
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 1: So the relevant legal question of these have you violated
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 1: anyone's rights? Have you committed fraud? Have you chest past
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 1: on another's property? Have you caused physical harm? Have you
• 1:27:54
  Speaker 1: created an objective demonstratable threat of harm? The stand is
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 1: not have you satisfied? In agencies open ended preferences, the
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 1: standard is have you violated rights? A central principle is
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 1: the presumption of innocence. A business should be fee to
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 1: act unless the government can prove objective engage endangerment. The
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 1: burden approof belongs to the states or the plaintiff, not
• 1:28:28
  Speaker 1: the producer. No one should have to prove that nothing
• 1:28:32
  Speaker 1: bad could ever happen. That's impossible on that proper legal system.
• 1:28:38
  Speaker 1: Laws are clear standards. Objective technical requirements are tied to
• 1:28:41
  Speaker 1: demonstratable risk and disputes adjudicated by courts according to evidence.
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 1: Evidence agencies do not possess open ended discretion to delay,
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 1: redesign or veto production. There would be no L and
• 1:29:03
  Speaker 1: T Elera style infinite ratchet radiation standards would be objective.
• 1:29:10
  Speaker 1: They would be tied to evidence thresholds, causality and actual risk.
• 1:29:14
  Speaker 1: Once a rational safety threshold is met, the producer proceeds.
• 1:29:19
  Speaker 1: Safety is a standard, not an infinite process. Private institutions
• 1:29:26
  Speaker 1: would play a major role. Private certification, insurance insurance would
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 1: play a huge role. Lenders, investors, customers, engineering firms, and
• 1:29:36
  Speaker 1: professional liability systems would all matter. A nuclear operator would
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 1: need to satisfy insurance insurers would then get the particular
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 1: thing certified. It would need to satisfy investors, it would
• 1:29:51
  Speaker 1: need to satisfy customers, and it would need credible engineering
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 1: certification to do all of the above, and if it
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 1: caused real harm, it would be liable. Liability would be
• 1:30:11
  Speaker 1: full and unlimited. A nuclear operator facing genuine, unlimited liability
• 1:30:17
  Speaker 1: for any harm cause the neighboring communities has every reason
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 1: to build the safest possible plant, not because of buocatting
• 1:30:23
  Speaker 1: Washington is reviewing its materials list. But because a catastrophic
• 1:30:27
  Speaker 1: accident will mean financial ruin, that incentive is real, immediate,
• 1:30:31
  Speaker 1: and impossible to gain. No paperwork theater, no box checking
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 1: actual safety, because it's in their inch of self interest.
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 1: Private insurance markets would would do the due diligence for
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 1: genuinely high stakes activities building a nuclear reactor, experimenting with
• 1:30:49
  Speaker 1: dagent dangerous pathogens, operating a dam above a populated valley.
• 1:30:54
  Speaker 1: The most powerful, powerful, the most powerful accountability mechanism is
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 1: mandatory private liability insurance. Before any insurer writes a multi
• 1:31:04
  Speaker 1: billion dollar policy on a nuclet plant, it will set
• 1:31:07
  Speaker 1: its own engineers. It will review the design, It will
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 1: inspect the construction. It will require ongoing safety monitoring. It
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 1: will set its own standards, not because the government told
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 1: it to, but because it's on the hook if something
• 1:31:20
  Speaker 1: goes wrong. A private insurer with billions of dollars at
• 1:31:26
  Speaker 1: risk is a more rigorous safety auditor and more objective
• 1:31:30
  Speaker 1: one than a government bureaucrat whose job is secure regardless
• 1:31:36
  Speaker 1: of outcomes, with no upside. Now I've discussed the insurance
• 1:31:42
  Speaker 1: mechanism regarding high risk ventures in other programs. But the
• 1:31:46
  Speaker 1: principle is this, instead of government telling you in advance
• 1:31:50
  Speaker 1: what to do, government requires that you carry sufficient liability insurance,
• 1:31:53
  Speaker 1: and then a private market the insurance does the rigorous
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 1: safety work that government bureaucuts pretend to do. Now, it
• 1:31:59
  Speaker 1: might not even need that, that is insurance. You might
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 1: not even need the government at all, because you won't
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 1: be able to raise capital without insurance. The market would
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 1: take care of it. Insurance bodies would generate their own
• 1:32:16
  Speaker 1: safety standards. We know this. We've seen in other industries
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: underwriters laboratories. The organization that certifies electric products is not
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 1: a government agency, g organically from the insurance industry because
• 1:32:30
  Speaker 1: insurance needed reliable standards before they would ensure electric equipment
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 1: electrical equipment. The aviation industry developed its own rigorous standards
• 1:32:38
  Speaker 1: precisely because aircraft manufacturers, airlines, and insurers all had a
• 1:32:42
  Speaker 1: aormous financial risks and safety outcomes. Nuclear left to develop.
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 1: In a free market would have done the same. The
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 1: industry would have produced its own standards, the own standard bodies,
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 1: its own inspection regimes, its own certification processes, all tied
• 1:32:58
  Speaker 1: to actual liability rather than bureaucratic complaints. Property rights would
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 1: handle most externality concerns. If a nuclear pop plant is
• 1:33:13
  Speaker 1: genuinely contaminating the air, water, or land, like any other industry,
• 1:33:18
  Speaker 1: those neighbors have a cause of action under property right law.
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 1: You don't need a preemptive regulatory of bureaucracy to handle this.
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 1: You need quotes that enforce property rights regulously. Radiation that
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 1: crosses a property line and damages human health is a
• 1:33:32
  Speaker 1: property rights violation. The threat of that lawsuit is a
• 1:33:35
  Speaker 1: powerful deterrent. Now I get that there are extreme tail
• 1:33:45
  Speaker 1: risk events. A truly catastrophic nuclear accident, the kind that
• 1:33:49
  Speaker 1: could affect thousands of square miles Chernova presents challenges the
• 1:33:53
  Speaker 1: standard liability framework you would need to address carefully. Even
• 1:33:59
  Speaker 1: in a free mark, there's a legitimate role for government
• 1:34:02
  Speaker 1: to ensure that the liability structure is real, that insurance
• 1:34:05
  Speaker 1: coverage is adequate, that corporate veil cannot be used to
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 1: escape responsibility for catastrophic calm for ventures with catastrophic potential.
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 1: I've argued that potentially piercing the corporate veil making shareholders
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 1: personally liable, rather than allowing the corporation to absorb the
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 1: loss and dissolve. That would keep the incentives alive and
• 1:34:26
  Speaker 1: would guarantee that the corporation would get insurance. But this
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 1: is crucial. Only people who can show actual injury, direct risk,
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 1: property invasion, breach of contract, or demonstratable engage endangerment should
• 1:34:42
  Speaker 1: have standing. There should be no activist veto, No national
• 1:34:47
  Speaker 1: environmentalist lobby should be able to stop a plant merely
• 1:34:51
  Speaker 1: because it hates nuclear power. The waste issue should be
• 1:34:56
  Speaker 1: handled the same way. Spent fuel is not a mystical
• 1:35:00
  Speaker 1: of course, it is physical material. The owner is responsible
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 1: for storing it safely. It can be stored on site.
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 1: It can be contracted to specialized storage firms. Dry cask
• 1:35:12
  Speaker 1: storage can be legitimate long term solution. Recycling and processing
• 1:35:16
  Speaker 1: should be legally legal if done safely. The government should
• 1:35:21
  Speaker 1: not trap the industry in a politically block the repository
• 1:35:24
  Speaker 1: scheme and then say you can't build because the political
• 1:35:27
  Speaker 1: problem we created has not been solved. On their free market,
• 1:35:33
  Speaker 1: util lease could generate, transmit, distributed and sell electricity if
• 1:35:37
  Speaker 1: they chose. Customers could sign long term contracts. Data centers
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 1: could finance reactors. Industrial firms could own reactors. Investors could
• 1:35:46
  Speaker 1: finance fleets of standardized plants, No state granted monopoly would
• 1:35:50
  Speaker 1: be required, no forced restructuring model would be imposed. The
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 1: market would discover the right financing structures. The principle simple.
• 1:36:02
  Speaker 1: You should be free to act. If you violate rights,
• 1:36:05
  Speaker 1: you'll be held accountable. But the government may not stop
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 1: humilily because someone is afraid of what you might do.
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 1: That's the difference between freedom, a permissionless society and a
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 1: society of permission. The nuclear industry today operates under the
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 1: worst possible combination strip of full liability thanks to the
• 1:36:29
  Speaker 1: Price Anderson cap. That's a legal thing, buried under pseudo
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 1: scientific prior restraint regulation thanks to L and T and
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 1: L area, and unable to standardize or innovate thanks to
• 1:36:42
  Speaker 1: case by case permitting. It is not capitalism. It's not
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 1: even sensible mixed economy regulation. It's a system designed where
• 1:36:49
  Speaker 1: they intentionally are not intentionally really to prevent nuclear power
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 1: from competing. So what can we do now even in
• 1:37:02
  Speaker 1: this mixed economy. We don't live under capitalism. We live
• 1:37:07
  Speaker 1: in a mixed economy. So what reforms could actually happen
• 1:37:15
  Speaker 1: are realistic? Well, I mean, the north Star should be clear,
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 1: reduce permission, increase objectivity, limit discretion, restart the learning proove First,
• 1:37:26
  Speaker 1: shift the burden to proof. This is the most fundament
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 1: of reform today. The producer must prove harmlessness. That is impossible.
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 1: The government should have to prove real endangerment. A permitch
• 1:37:38
  Speaker 1: denial should require specific material, scientific demonstratable risk. Now, this
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 1: is a long term reform. It requires deep changes in
• 1:37:49
  Speaker 1: the state of law and strtutory law. But it is
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 1: the thing to fight for and it can be done. Second,
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 1: binding shot clocks. Deadlines must have teeth, not the agency
• 1:38:05
  Speaker 1: must explain why it is late. That is meaningless. The
• 1:38:08
  Speaker 1: real standards should be if the agency misses a deadline,
• 1:38:11
  Speaker 1: the permit is granted. For nuclear maybe thirty days. It's
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 1: too aggressive, okay, so you know, make it a year,
• 1:38:20
  Speaker 1: six months. And you know for repeat units it should
• 1:38:24
  Speaker 1: be shorter. Certified designs. Once they're approved, they're approved, but
• 1:38:33
  Speaker 1: the clock eight clock has to really mean something has
• 1:38:37
  Speaker 1: to be used. Third, certification of fleet licensing. You know,
• 1:38:45
  Speaker 1: this is probably the most important thing that you could do.
• 1:38:49
  Speaker 1: Quickly certify the reactive design once, then allow it to
• 1:38:53
  Speaker 1: be built repeatedly. Limit site review to genuine science specific factors,
• 1:38:58
  Speaker 1: seismic issuesology, population, transmission, emergency access. Do not let activists
• 1:39:05
  Speaker 1: relitigate the same design at every site. The FAA does
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 1: not re certify a plane every time an airline buys one.
• 1:39:15
  Speaker 1: Nuclear should not be any different. That's really doable for
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 1: Abolish radically, revise L and T and ala r A.
• 1:39:25
  Speaker 1: This is one of the highest leverage reforms. Replace pseudo
• 1:39:29
  Speaker 1: threshold fears with objective radiation standards, regulate actual safety, not
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 1: infinite mitigation of theoretical risk, and you know, get rid
• 1:39:44
  Speaker 1: of all the environmental reviews. If a standardized nuclear design
• 1:39:51
  Speaker 1: is being built in an existing nuclear site or a
• 1:39:54
  Speaker 1: retired coal site, a DOE site, or a DoD site,
• 1:39:58
  Speaker 1: Department of Energy, the Fund of Defense on industrial site,
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 1: we should not redo the entire environdamental environmental trial of
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 1: nuclear power every time review real life specific risks. Do
• 1:40:11
  Speaker 1: not reopen the moral question of whether nuclear energy should exist.
• 1:40:15
  Speaker 1: It should, but don't give the environmental lists this tool
• 1:40:19
  Speaker 1: of constant review and endless lawsuits, and there has to
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 1: be an end to it. Financing reform in today's mixed economy,
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 1: we need to allow financing structures that fit nuclear's capital profile.
• 1:40:32
  Speaker 1: That means long term power purchase agreements. It means allowing
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 1: large customers, data centers, manufacturers, firms to contract directly with
• 1:40:39
  Speaker 1: nuclear plants. It means allowing state utility models that permit
• 1:40:43
  Speaker 1: cost recovery for nuclear construction where appropriate. These are regulatory issues,
• 1:40:48
  Speaker 1: mainly at the state level. The goal is not to
• 1:40:51
  Speaker 1: subsidize nuclear. The goal is to stop making nuclear unfinanciable.
• 1:40:58
  Speaker 1: Sevenational licensing reform. A worldere electrician, pipe fifter, or technician
• 1:41:04
  Speaker 1: should not become legally unqualified by crossing a state line.
• 1:41:08
  Speaker 1: Fifty state reciprocity who relevant skilled trades is obvious. Yeah,
• 1:41:13
  Speaker 1: I mean occupation licensing should get you should get rid
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 1: of completely. But the idea that every state does it
• 1:41:18
  Speaker 1: differently is bizarre. Again. An easy one automatic licensing credit
• 1:41:25
  Speaker 1: for veterans. US Navy has an extraordinary pool of nuclear
• 1:41:29
  Speaker 1: trained people. Navy nuclear machinists, mates, electricians, electronics technicians, react
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 1: to operators. These people have worked in some of the
• 1:41:38
  Speaker 1: most demanding nuclear environments in the world. They should not
• 1:41:42
  Speaker 1: have to start over as if they were untrained appenticies.
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 1: Give them credit, give them the license. This should be
• 1:41:52
  Speaker 1: politically easy. It's a pro veteran pro energy, pro industry
• 1:41:56
  Speaker 1: in pro common sense spend fuel reform, Stop letting waste
• 1:42:03
  Speaker 1: be used as a political hostage. Recognize dry cask storage
• 1:42:06
  Speaker 1: is legitimate, Allow private consolidation storage, allow recycling and reprocessing.
• 1:42:12
  Speaker 1: And the fantasy that nuclear cannot proceed unless and until
• 1:42:16
  Speaker 1: politicians solve their Yukam Mountain problem. You know, can ask
• 1:42:20
  Speaker 1: me about that if you want. Finally nuclear innovation zones.
• 1:42:25
  Speaker 1: It's kind of cool. Use THEE and DOOD sites to
• 1:42:29
  Speaker 1: test and operate advanced reactors under simplified frameworks. Get the
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 1: real world operating data, build prototypes. We start learning now,
• 1:42:37
  Speaker 1: even before the entire regulatory system is fixed. Now, all
• 1:42:41
  Speaker 1: these reforms reinforce one another. And you know, type certification
• 1:42:49
  Speaker 1: only matters if you can build the same design repeatedly.
• 1:42:51
  Speaker 1: You can only build repeatedly if financing works. Financing only works,
• 1:42:55
  Speaker 1: the regulatory uncertainly falls. The learning curve only compounds if
• 1:43:00
  Speaker 1: Alan t and alaiay on not adding costs every unit.
• 1:43:04
  Speaker 1: Skilled labor only matters if workers can move where the
• 1:43:08
  Speaker 1: projects are. The solution is not one magic reform. It's
• 1:43:13
  Speaker 1: to create the condition under which building is possible. Now,
• 1:43:19
  Speaker 1: all of this not only has a progress growth dimension,
• 1:43:23
  Speaker 1: and it also has a national security dimension. Nuclear energy
• 1:43:27
  Speaker 1: is strategic infrastructure. It affects grid reliability, industrial capability, naval expertise,
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 1: uranium supply chains, enrichment, AI infrastructure, defence, production, and technological leadership.
• 1:43:40
  Speaker 1: China is now harvesting the nuclear learning cove America bandit.
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 1: That should be humiliating that that the you know, fascist
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 1: communist regime in China's ahead of America. American invented much
• 1:43:53
  Speaker 1: of this technology they're building. American design, America pioneered commercial
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 1: nuclear America, the engineers, the utilities, the industrial base, and
• 1:44:02
  Speaker 1: the entrepreneurial culture. And in America strangled itself dances not
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 1: to copy China's authoritarianism. The answers to rediscover America's own strength, freedom, production, engineering, capitalism,
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 1: the right to build. We should build proven large reactors now.
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 1: We should build AP one hundreds and other certified large
• 1:44:23
  Speaker 1: designs repeatedly. We should develop SMRs in parallel. We should
• 1:44:27
  Speaker 1: rebuild the fuel cycle, uranium mining, conversion and enrichment, fuel fabrication,
• 1:44:31
  Speaker 1: recycling storage. We should train well the as electricians, engineers,
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 1: project managers, and quality control specialists. But above all, what
• 1:44:40
  Speaker 1: we really need. What we really need is the confidence
• 1:44:45
  Speaker 1: to do all this, the moral confidence. We don't just
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 1: need nuclear engineers. We need a culture that honors engineers,
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 1: honors progress, honors industrialization. We do not merely need better
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 1: licensing timelines. We need a civilization understands production as noble.
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 1: What's going on right now, Well, it would be great
• 1:45:18
  Speaker 1: to abolish l and T and Ellara. Now it's a
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 1: prerequisite for really everything else. As long as these two
• 1:45:26
  Speaker 1: pseudoscientific standards government NLC nuclear will remain impossibly expensive to
• 1:45:32
  Speaker 1: license and build. Regardless of any other reforms, There's been
• 1:45:36
  Speaker 1: real movement. Trump's executive order instructs the NLC to reevaluate both.
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 1: The Department Advantergy has already removed Ellara from its own directives.
• 1:45:48
  Speaker 1: The NLC is now actively considering a parallel rulemaking Alex
• 1:45:53
  Speaker 1: Epstein's timeline. Epstein's timeline is precise. Within the three months,
• 1:46:00
  Speaker 1: the NLC issues a request for a fast tracked National
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 1: Academics review of lent T's scientific basis. Within eighteen months.
• 1:46:08
  Speaker 1: Based on their review, the NRC publishers proposed ruling rules
• 1:46:12
  Speaker 1: stripping both ellen and Allura from its regulations. A final
• 1:46:16
  Speaker 1: rule could be enforced by early twenty twenty seven, right
• 1:46:20
  Speaker 1: before the first SMR Small modular reactor operating licenses are expected.
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 1: If the science based threshold is in place before this
• 1:46:29
  Speaker 1: first SMR is a license, developers can design to that
• 1:46:33
  Speaker 1: standard from the start, saving tens of millions of dollars
• 1:46:37
  Speaker 1: per unit. The replacement standard Epstein recommends is simple, a
• 1:46:44
  Speaker 1: single public dose threshold a five rem per year, the
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 1: same limit already applied to nuclear workers who have long
• 1:46:53
  Speaker 1: track record of safe operation at that level. And by
• 1:46:57
  Speaker 1: the way, I think that's a standard for you know,
• 1:47:00
  Speaker 1: nuclear weppens in the in submarines. Second, use the general
• 1:47:06
  Speaker 1: environmental impact statement by default. The Advance Act passed biprotesantly
• 1:47:12
  Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four rightly directed the NRC to move
• 1:47:16
  Speaker 1: towards generals Environmental impact statements, a single environmental review for
• 1:47:22
  Speaker 1: standardized reactor design that applies to all copies of that design.
• 1:47:27
  Speaker 1: This is the standard of Pycipal Principal fans understood fifty
• 1:47:31
  Speaker 1: years ago, and we abandoned. Then USC should promalgate a
• 1:47:36
  Speaker 1: rule making general eis the default for standardized SMR designs,
• 1:47:42
  Speaker 1: eliminate the duplicative, years long review for every copy of
• 1:47:45
  Speaker 1: a proven design and produced. The first such generalized eis
• 1:47:52
  Speaker 1: within a year. These all the forms that are being
• 1:47:56
  Speaker 1: advocated now and could happen. Third, reforming the liability structure.
• 1:48:02
  Speaker 1: The Price Annison Act, which caps nuclear liability while simultaneously
• 1:48:06
  Speaker 1: burning the industry with prior restraint regulation, should be reconsidered.
• 1:48:10
  Speaker 1: The liability cap should be raised substantially or eliminated ideally
• 1:48:13
  Speaker 1: eliminated for large reactors, while simultaneously removing the pseudoscience prior
• 1:48:19
  Speaker 1: restraint regulation. You cannot have it both ways. Either the
• 1:48:24
  Speaker 1: industry carries genuine unlimited liability and self regulates through the
• 1:48:27
  Speaker 1: incentive that incentive, or it operates under genuine prior restraint
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 1: regulation set to science based standards. What we have now
• 1:48:36
  Speaker 1: newded liability and pseudo scientific regulation gives us the both
• 1:48:40
  Speaker 1: of both worlds, the worst of both worlds. Reform should
• 1:48:44
  Speaker 1: move towards full liability, mandatory private insurance at levels that
• 1:48:48
  Speaker 1: reflect real catastrophic risk, and the gradual replacement of prior
• 1:48:52
  Speaker 1: restraint bureaucracy with limited with liability based accountability. Last one,
• 1:49:02
  Speaker 1: make the regulatory form durable. This is important. Trump's support
• 1:49:07
  Speaker 1: for nuclear is essentially meaningless. Unless unless it produces structural
• 1:49:12
  Speaker 1: change that survives beyond this administration. Nuclear construction timelines run
• 1:49:17
  Speaker 1: eight to fifteen years. No investor can underwrite that timeline.
• 1:49:21
  Speaker 1: When regulated, regulatory ground can shift every election cycle. That
• 1:49:26
  Speaker 1: means statutory reform. I keep saying this, not executive voters,
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 1: not NRC guidance documents, but changes in body embedded in law.
• 1:49:38
  Speaker 1: The Advance Act is a start. It's not enough. Congress
• 1:49:42
  Speaker 1: needs to codify the abolition L and T and Allower
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 1: in statute, standardize the permitting process for proven designs in statute,
• 1:49:51
  Speaker 1: and create a regulatory framework that investors can rely on
• 1:49:55
  Speaker 1: across administrations. They need to do it in statute. Nuclear
• 1:50:01
  Speaker 1: energy is not just another energy shows. It's become a symbol.
• 1:50:06
  Speaker 1: It's a symbol of the human mind applied to nature,
• 1:50:11
  Speaker 1: a symbol of abundance, a symbol of civilization that refuses
• 1:50:16
  Speaker 1: to live by candlelight when it command, when it can
• 1:50:19
  Speaker 1: command the atom. America did not lose nuclear because nuclear failed.
• 1:50:26
  Speaker 1: We lost nuclear because we replaced confidence with fear, production
• 1:50:30
  Speaker 1: with permission, science with pseudoscience, rights with regulation. We turned
• 1:50:35
  Speaker 1: the builders into a suspect. We turned the engineer into
• 1:50:38
  Speaker 1: a defendant. We turned energy into a sin. The future
• 1:50:44
  Speaker 1: of nuclear depends on whether we reverse that. Do we
• 1:50:48
  Speaker 1: restore the presumption of innocence? Do we restore objective law?
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 1: Do we restore the right to build? Do we build
• 1:50:58
  Speaker 1: the same react again and again and again into we
• 1:51:00
  Speaker 1: become great at building again. This is not where the
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 1: nuclear can work. We know it works. This is whether
• 1:51:07
  Speaker 1: America still believes in human achievement, still believes in building
• 1:51:13
  Speaker 1: a pro human civilization, does not apologize for energy. Builds, builds,
• 1:51:19
  Speaker 1: builds more of it. All right? That is my spiel
• 1:51:26
  Speaker 1: on nuclear energy. Again. Thanks to Richard for sponsoring this.
• 1:51:30
  Speaker 1: You can sponsor a show on a topic you want.
• 1:51:33
  Speaker 1: It's one thousand dollars. Just drop me an email and
• 1:51:35
  Speaker 1: then we can do it. Richard, Ope, this covered the basis.
• 1:51:39
  Speaker 1: I think I covered everything you asked. But I'm happy
• 1:51:42
  Speaker 1: to take questions, and I think we'll turn to that.
• 1:51:47
  Speaker 1: We'll turn into our supercheck questions at this point and
• 1:51:51
  Speaker 1: see where that takes you. I'll remind you. Alex Epstein
• 1:51:54
  Speaker 1: is a sponsor of the Your On Book Show, a
• 1:51:57
  Speaker 1: monthly sponsor, and you can check out his work at
• 1:52:00
  Speaker 1: alex epstein subsect dot com. Alex Epstein subsect dot com
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 1: and you can get access to alex ai well. You
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 1: can ask questions about nuclear energy, other forms of energy, environmentalism, regulations,
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 1: and you will get amazing responses, amazing responses. So Alex ayer,
• 1:52:21
  Speaker 1: all right, let's see, we're finishing up our second hour.
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 1: We have raised more than for two hours, so we're
• 1:52:32
  Speaker 1: and so it's a fundraising. We're into the third hour
• 1:52:34
  Speaker 1: and that's great. Keep it coming. We've got about another
• 1:52:37
  Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty to complete the third hour goal.
• 1:52:40
  Speaker 1: I hope we can make that. That would be great.
• 1:52:44
  Speaker 1: Let's start with the fifty dollars questions. We'll start with
• 1:52:47
  Speaker 1: Richard Richard who sponsored this, so he should we should
• 1:52:50
  Speaker 1: start with him. Richard said, loving the nuclear focus one
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 1: point SMRs are getting all the attention, but we need
• 1:52:57
  Speaker 1: large reactors to including Mitchard Beci's APR one point seven
• 1:53:01
  Speaker 1: gigo at each fastest route is a commanche Peak wrote
• 1:53:09
  Speaker 1: it up. Would love to get it to you and Alex, Yeah,
• 1:53:12
  Speaker 1: send it, send it. I emailed Alex and asked him
• 1:53:15
  Speaker 1: if you'd be interested if you send me the actual document,
• 1:53:18
  Speaker 1: I'll just forward it to him and hopefully he'll read it.
• 1:53:21
  Speaker 1: But yes, I mean, you know, I'm not familiar with
• 1:53:23
  Speaker 1: all the different production lines or designs of nuclear pop plants.
• 1:53:27
  Speaker 1: I'm sure that Chinese are not only building the AP
• 1:53:30
  Speaker 1: one thousand. They're building various types, but they're building many
• 1:53:34
  Speaker 1: of each, so they get the economies of scale. Going
• 1:53:37
  Speaker 1: uh other places. I know scand the Navy they're building
• 1:53:41
  Speaker 1: nuclear pop plants. India is considering nuclear pop plants, and yes,
• 1:53:46
  Speaker 1: they're bring on more designs being on. I mean, one
• 1:53:49
  Speaker 1: of the things that will happen if America really committed
• 1:53:52
  Speaker 1: to building large nuclear pop plants, you would get competitive
• 1:53:56
  Speaker 1: pressures to innovate and design. You'll get more people designed,
• 1:54:00
  Speaker 1: more options in terms of design, more possibilities, more price points,
• 1:54:05
  Speaker 1: more safety points, competition. You know, it's a good thing.
• 1:54:09
  Speaker 1: And right now, why go into nuclear power? Why go
• 1:54:14
  Speaker 1: into nuclear energy? Why design a new nuclear pop plant
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 1: when the biggest market in the world, the United States,
• 1:54:20
  Speaker 1: is not building any I mean, you can design for
• 1:54:25
  Speaker 1: the Chinese market, but that's limited. Imagine if the United
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 1: States joined and how much energy that would produce in
• 1:54:32
  Speaker 1: terms of people eager to create new designs for new poplants. So, yes,
• 1:54:39
  Speaker 1: SMOs get all the SMOs are the sexy thing, but
• 1:54:43
  Speaker 1: the reality is big nuclear pop plants are what we
• 1:54:45
  Speaker 1: really need because we need lots of electricity. Imagine we
• 1:54:50
  Speaker 1: all driving electric cause or we're not driving cause we're
• 1:54:53
  Speaker 1: all being driven by electric cause taxis and self driving
• 1:54:58
  Speaker 1: cause that we own. Uh, but those are going to
• 1:55:01
  Speaker 1: be electric and that's the future. Imagine the trucks are
• 1:55:04
  Speaker 1: all being driven by self driving electric trucks. That requires
• 1:55:08
  Speaker 1: lots of electricity, much more than we have today. And
• 1:55:11
  Speaker 1: of course AI and as we get richer, we'll discover
• 1:55:15
  Speaker 1: more and more and more and more things we want
• 1:55:17
  Speaker 1: to use electricity. Four, So we need much much more electricity.
• 1:55:24
  Speaker 1: There's a there's a you know, an infinite demand, potentially
• 1:55:28
  Speaker 1: infinite demand for the amount of electricity. So the best
• 1:55:31
  Speaker 1: way to supply that is with large nuclear pop plans
• 1:55:36
  Speaker 1: and SMRs too, where they were a pupil like attached
• 1:55:39
  Speaker 1: one to every every you know, data center or to
• 1:55:46
  Speaker 1: every way more. I don't know, I don't know. You know,
• 1:55:50
  Speaker 1: if it's possible one day to build nuclear pop plants,
• 1:55:53
  Speaker 1: they are small enough and safe enough to just attach
• 1:55:56
  Speaker 1: them to an electric motor. Richard says, the culinary to
• 1:56:04
  Speaker 1: individual rights is we must abolish the permission slip society. Absolutely,
• 1:56:09
  Speaker 1: reading NSC documents is stupid, beyond anything I've ever read,
• 1:56:14
  Speaker 1: and I read SEC risk factors at work. They hate
• 1:56:18
  Speaker 1: nuclear because it solves the problem they need to have yes,
• 1:56:23
  Speaker 1: and their jobs depend on complexity, and their jobs depend
• 1:56:27
  Speaker 1: on bureaucracy, and their jobs depend on a permission. A
• 1:56:31
  Speaker 1: society built on permission, a society of rights isn't permission
• 1:56:37
  Speaker 1: less society. It's a society where people don't ask for permission.
• 1:56:42
  Speaker 1: It's a society where people just build, and if something
• 1:56:48
  Speaker 1: they're doing is really really risky, people can complain about
• 1:56:50
  Speaker 1: that and inspect. This could be sent. But it has
• 1:56:53
  Speaker 1: to be an objective risk and if people do harm,
• 1:56:56
  Speaker 1: they are liable for that home all right, Richard, again
• 1:57:05
  Speaker 1: a common talking point from NRC apologists. The reason for
• 1:57:09
  Speaker 1: regulatory delay delays is because utilities, reactors designers change their
• 1:57:14
  Speaker 1: design mid stream, which requires new analysis. The reality is
• 1:57:20
  Speaker 1: those redesigns are forced upon them by the NLCS. R
• 1:57:24
  Speaker 1: A I S. R AI stands for r AI stands
• 1:57:29
  Speaker 1: for I don't know, my guess is Revised regulatory regimes
• 1:57:34
  Speaker 1: Revised regulations VICE standards that constantly require new redesign of
• 1:57:39
  Speaker 1: the power plant itself. Yes, I mean you're at the
• 1:57:43
  Speaker 1: bacon call of regulators. You're at the bacon call of Remember,
• 1:57:46
  Speaker 1: regulators have no interest in taking risk. Risk is farign
• 1:57:51
  Speaker 1: to them. They're non interested in risk. Industry private sector
• 1:58:02
  Speaker 1: weighs risk and return. It doesn't zero out risk because
• 1:58:10
  Speaker 1: zero old risk means not building, not creating, not making.
• 1:58:16
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Richard, all right, Moulten Milten's splendor another fifty dollars.
• 1:58:21
  Speaker 1: Anyone can drive a car anyway. Why do we allow
• 1:58:24
  Speaker 1: people to drive a Carles I fe with only a
• 1:58:27
  Speaker 1: few rules of the road, Well, quite a few. Do
• 1:58:31
  Speaker 1: we impose regulations and controls and business, nuclear science, et
• 1:58:36
  Speaker 1: cetera because we are fearful of things we don't understand
• 1:58:39
  Speaker 1: or have. I mean, part of it is that we
• 1:58:42
  Speaker 1: don't understand it. Part of it is is that if
• 1:58:50
  Speaker 1: we regulate nuclear, we piss off fewer people. Like the
• 1:58:55
  Speaker 1: nuclear industry is upset, but think about if you really
• 1:58:59
  Speaker 1: regulate it. Aunomobiles and it made it impossible for people
• 1:59:02
  Speaker 1: to drive very far. People were getting really upset. And
• 1:59:05
  Speaker 1: we're talking about one hundreds, tens of millions of people,
• 1:59:08
  Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of people. Everybody has a car, so
• 1:59:11
  Speaker 1: we're not gonna piss them off too much. We're still
• 1:59:14
  Speaker 1: going to regulate certain things. We're gonna make cause more expensive,
• 1:59:17
  Speaker 1: but slowly. We'd have speed limits, but once they people
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 1: get upset about a fifty five mil and our speed limit,
• 1:59:26
  Speaker 1: what'll raise it. So it's it's a shin numbers game.
• 1:59:33
  Speaker 1: You don't want to piss off the large majority of people.
• 1:59:36
  Speaker 1: So it's not just what we don't understand. It's also
• 1:59:40
  Speaker 1: from a political perspective where we're gonna do the least
• 1:59:42
  Speaker 1: damage politically. But a lot of it is fear of
• 1:59:49
  Speaker 1: the of science, right. I mean, scientists understand nuclear pop plants,
• 1:59:54
  Speaker 1: they know how they work, they understand it completely. It's
• 1:59:57
  Speaker 1: the layman and the politician who don't to regulated and
• 2:00:02
  Speaker 1: they play off of that. Remember it's also a way
• 2:00:05
  Speaker 1: to control, indirectly control all of us. Thanks Moulton, we
• 2:00:18
  Speaker 1: still have about one hundred and twenty dollars to reach
• 2:00:21
  Speaker 1: our goal, so consider doing a stick up. Stickers are
• 2:00:26
  Speaker 1: great value for value, rants says how Ron, great to
• 2:00:33
  Speaker 1: see you covering nuclear thanks to Richard. With new reactors needed,
• 2:00:38
  Speaker 1: needing fuel does Australia have a major uranium export opportunity
• 2:00:42
  Speaker 1: if we get our act together, and how do we
• 2:00:44
  Speaker 1: convince Australians to back nuclear and lift the ban? Yeah,
• 2:00:49
  Speaker 1: I mean the same thing we have to do to
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 1: convince Americans. It's the safest, cleanest, most powerful, potentially form
• 2:00:57
  Speaker 1: of production of electricity that there is available out there.
• 2:01:02
  Speaker 1: You don't get the unreliability of solar and wind, and
• 2:01:06
  Speaker 1: you don't get you don't get real pollution. So you know,
• 2:01:11
  Speaker 1: you have to fight for permissionless, growth oriented world. And
• 2:01:17
  Speaker 1: so you fight for the same in Australia as you
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 1: would in America. Yes, I think country is like Australia
• 2:01:23
  Speaker 1: that have a lot of uranium and have vast territory
• 2:01:27
  Speaker 1: and could build uranium processing facilities, can be a crucial
• 2:01:33
  Speaker 1: and important player in a future supply chain that provides
• 2:01:38
  Speaker 1: uranium to the United States and to China into other
• 2:01:41
  Speaker 1: countries around the world that are pursuing nuclei. It has
• 2:01:45
  Speaker 1: to come from somewhere. Now, a lot can be done
• 2:01:47
  Speaker 1: in the United States. The United States has uranium deposits here.
• 2:01:51
  Speaker 1: But you know, we have to deregulate mining. We have
• 2:01:54
  Speaker 1: to make mining a lot, lot, lot easier and cheap.
• 2:01:57
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's a whole other show is to talk
• 2:02:00
  Speaker 1: about mining regulations and how we can get mining accelerated
• 2:02:04
  Speaker 1: and working faster, because that solves our earth material problem,
• 2:02:10
  Speaker 1: It solves out a battery problem, it serves uranium problem.
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 1: I mean, mining is really key to this. And the
• 2:02:18
  Speaker 1: thing restricting mining today is not that we don't have
• 2:02:21
  Speaker 1: the material in the ground. It exists in the ground
• 2:02:23
  Speaker 1: in America. It's all the environmental regulation that makes it
• 2:02:26
  Speaker 1: impossible to mine it. And then even if you mine it,
• 2:02:30
  Speaker 1: the environmental regulations make it almost impossible to refine it,
• 2:02:33
  Speaker 1: to build factories that refine this stuff. So we got
• 2:02:38
  Speaker 1: to massively reform the environmental regulations in this country, get
• 2:02:42
  Speaker 1: rid of them ideally, but reform them to make mining
• 2:02:47
  Speaker 1: and refining possible. Let's see, I'm looking for nuclear questions
• 2:02:58
  Speaker 1: first and then I'll get to the other ones. All right,
• 2:03:12
  Speaker 1: all right, Richard, these are twenty dollars questions. Frans can
• 2:03:17
  Speaker 1: and should be doing better on nuclear. Absolutely, But one
• 2:03:21
  Speaker 1: of the reasons Fans isn't a complete basket based basket
• 2:03:25
  Speaker 1: case and has more industry than more free market EU
• 2:03:30
  Speaker 1: countries like Germany is basically its energy abundance, yes, and
• 2:03:35
  Speaker 1: its energy abundance was there's a sense in which is
• 2:03:38
  Speaker 1: an accident. It was the technocrats, the bureaucratic technocrats who
• 2:03:43
  Speaker 1: ran kind of the energy regulatory infrastructure in France believed
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 1: in nuclear. They happened to believe in nuclear, and they
• 2:03:50
  Speaker 1: didn't buy into the fieldmongering, and they doubled down on
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 1: nuclear in the seventies and they built out nuclear during
• 2:03:58
  Speaker 1: that period of time. And since everything was centralized in government,
• 2:04:03
  Speaker 1: you got by chance a group of pro technology bureaucrats
• 2:04:11
  Speaker 1: who then you know, and they didn't let the environmentalists
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 1: get to them. And since they ran things. This is
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 1: one thing you can do with authoritarianism, if you know.
• 2:04:21
  Speaker 1: This is why China is building nucap oplands. The people
• 2:04:23
  Speaker 1: in China have decided nuclear is good. They just command
• 2:04:27
  Speaker 1: that they all be built. Now, this is not a
• 2:04:30
  Speaker 1: case for authoritarians. It's the opposite. It's kind of a
• 2:04:35
  Speaker 1: shocking that you can find authoritarians who get it, and
• 2:04:40
  Speaker 1: we in free countries holding ourselves back. It's pretty stunning.
• 2:04:46
  Speaker 1: It's pretty stunning, you know. But so yes, fans should
• 2:04:50
  Speaker 1: be way ahead if it had a true free market
• 2:04:53
  Speaker 1: with the same post science mentality, they would be way ahead.
• 2:04:57
  Speaker 1: Instead of seventy percent of the energy, they could be
• 2:05:02
  Speaker 1: producing one hundred and fifty percent of their energy and
• 2:05:04
  Speaker 1: sending selling their abundant their excess to Germany, to Spain,
• 2:05:09
  Speaker 1: to these other countries, so fans could be instead of
• 2:05:14
  Speaker 1: seventy percent, could be over one hundred percent and using
• 2:05:16
  Speaker 1: it as a profit center what it should be. Richard
• 2:05:22
  Speaker 1: continues not to mention that they have mandatory contested hearings
• 2:05:27
  Speaker 1: allowing the NRDC and other anti life environmentalists engage in
• 2:05:32
  Speaker 1: endless delay via litigation and mandatory uncontested hearings even if
• 2:05:37
  Speaker 1: no one sues Yes, and environmental impact studies and all
• 2:05:42
  Speaker 1: the environmental regulations and hearings, and that is killing, killing
• 2:05:51
  Speaker 1: building everywhere. It's killing residential and industry and factories and
• 2:05:57
  Speaker 1: mining and building of nuclear and in every dimension of
• 2:06:01
  Speaker 1: American life. These environmental regulations are shackling progress, inhibiting progress.
• 2:06:13
  Speaker 1: It's one of the most important things that can be
• 2:06:15
  Speaker 1: eliminated from a regular books. And the reality is the EPA,
• 2:06:20
  Speaker 1: the Environmental Protection Agency right now on the trumps is
• 2:06:25
  Speaker 1: it's pretty good on this. They would like to get
• 2:06:27
  Speaker 1: rid of a lot of these environmental regulations they're trying,
• 2:06:30
  Speaker 1: But as I pointed out before, to really may have
• 2:06:34
  Speaker 1: a difference over the long run. You got to get
• 2:06:38
  Speaker 1: it through regular you got to get it through the legislation.
• 2:06:40
  Speaker 1: You got to get a bill that basically, you know,
• 2:06:47
  Speaker 1: deregulates gets rid of all these regulations at a statutory level,
• 2:06:53
  Speaker 1: not just at the level of a level of regulations
• 2:06:58
  Speaker 1: that can then be overturned by the next administration. Okay, Richard,
• 2:07:06
  Speaker 1: One point I found interesting in murders anguins, shooting the grid.
• 2:07:12
  Speaker 1: Deregulated merchant markets, on average have twice the regulations that
• 2:07:16
  Speaker 1: regulated utility markets do. Yes, I mean, I always am
• 2:07:21
  Speaker 1: shocked by people talking about the deregulation of you know,
• 2:07:26
  Speaker 1: the was it the nineteen eighties or nineteen nineties in
• 2:07:30
  Speaker 1: utility markets? It wasn't. It was a reregulation. It was
• 2:07:34
  Speaker 1: just a change irregulation, and in some cases it involved
• 2:07:38
  Speaker 1: adding regulation and adding complexity and adding processes that make
• 2:07:44
  Speaker 1: things worse, not better. That was true of the deregulation
• 2:07:48
  Speaker 1: of telecommunications, which was a little bit better at moved
• 2:07:52
  Speaker 1: towards more freedom, but still massive regulations, just different ones.
• 2:07:56
  Speaker 1: So it's always reregulation, not true. Deregulation. I ran came
• 2:08:04
  Speaker 1: back with another fifty Australian dollars. If there would be
• 2:08:08
  Speaker 1: a near total deregulation of nuclear as proposed, what effects
• 2:08:14
  Speaker 1: would this have on nuclear submarine production and hence ARCIS,
• 2:08:19
  Speaker 1: which is the military deal between the US, Australia and
• 2:08:23
  Speaker 1: the UK to supply Australia with nuclear submarines. Look, I
• 2:08:27
  Speaker 1: think that a complete deregulation would create massive competition, would
• 2:08:33
  Speaker 1: generate real innovation in nuclear production that would spill over
• 2:08:40
  Speaker 1: into military nuclear poplins and would ultimately improve the poplants
• 2:08:49
  Speaker 1: that go into the nuclear submarines. Those have to be small,
• 2:08:53
  Speaker 1: incredibly safe and efficient. And I think that if you
• 2:08:57
  Speaker 1: had real competition in the villian sector, that would spill
• 2:09:02
  Speaker 1: over into significant improvements in the military sector as well.
• 2:09:07
  Speaker 1: So huge impact in terms of just better All right,
• 2:09:17
  Speaker 1: string of bell. Hell are you on? Is the fear
• 2:09:19
  Speaker 1: surrounding nuclear energy a result of the Manhattan Project? No,
• 2:09:23
  Speaker 1: it's a result of anything of three mile alulent A,
• 2:09:28
  Speaker 1: a you know, a problem that was actually dealt with
• 2:09:33
  Speaker 1: and nobody died. It's a result of Chernovil, which was
• 2:09:38
  Speaker 1: a maldown bed of a Soviet reactor built by Soviet
• 2:09:45
  Speaker 1: system and the response to it was Soviet like. If
• 2:09:49
  Speaker 1: you want to see a great TV show, check out
• 2:09:53
  Speaker 1: Chernobyl on HBO. I think it's on HBO Max where
• 2:09:57
  Speaker 1: they dramatize the bonds to the Chernobyl meltdown, and you
• 2:10:02
  Speaker 1: can see how the meldown had the impact that it
• 2:10:06
  Speaker 1: had because of the complete and utter incompetence of the
• 2:10:09
  Speaker 1: of the of the communist operatives operativists, we'll call them, Adam,
• 2:10:20
  Speaker 1: says Francis. Two separate tertiary educational systems universities versus original
• 2:10:26
  Speaker 1: private Gondi cause working experts come from the Gande cause
• 2:10:31
  Speaker 1: and ignore university philosophers. Is that one makes us different?
• 2:10:35
  Speaker 1: I don't really think so. I think what makes it
• 2:10:37
  Speaker 1: different is very much a top down, bureaucratically led decision
• 2:10:44
  Speaker 1: making process. They know the environmentalist groups don't get a
• 2:10:48
  Speaker 1: lot of say the bureaucrats doing. If the bureaucrats happen
• 2:10:52
  Speaker 1: to be good in science, then they get it and
• 2:10:55
  Speaker 1: they fund it and they do it. In France, the
• 2:10:58
  Speaker 1: smartest people who graduate from university or their calls go
• 2:11:03
  Speaker 1: to the bureaucracy. They don't go into private industry. So
• 2:11:06
  Speaker 1: the people working in the French government are relatively speaking,
• 2:11:11
  Speaker 1: relative to bureaucrats everywhere else in the world, smart competent,
• 2:11:15
  Speaker 1: smart and competent. They're not hard working, but the small competent,
• 2:11:19
  Speaker 1: so the bureaucracy works better there. In spite of the
• 2:11:22
  Speaker 1: massive bureaucracy in Friends and really harbable economic policy fans
• 2:11:26
  Speaker 1: somehow manages it doesn't do well. The United States is
• 2:11:31
  Speaker 1: way ahead of France in every dimension of economic success.
• 2:11:36
  Speaker 1: But France survives because it has relatively smart people who
• 2:11:40
  Speaker 1: go into government and make it work the best that
• 2:11:45
  Speaker 1: government can work, which is not very good, but better
• 2:11:48
  Speaker 1: than the incompetence that we tend to hire into our government.
• 2:11:53
  Speaker 1: Mary Alene, Are there any hopeful science on the nuclear front?
• 2:11:57
  Speaker 1: Are there any politicians who understand the value of nuclear
• 2:12:00
  Speaker 1: power fighting for it? Yes. I think the Trump administration
• 2:12:05
  Speaker 1: broadly speaking, is very pro nuclear. I think Energy Secretary
• 2:12:10
  Speaker 1: right Chris Wright, is very pro nuclear, as is the
• 2:12:14
  Speaker 1: head of the EPA Zelden Zeedlins something like that. Form.
• 2:12:19
  Speaker 1: A Congressman is quite is very pro nuclear, trying to
• 2:12:22
  Speaker 1: deregulate at the environmental level to allow for more nuclear
• 2:12:28
  Speaker 1: I think the Interior Secretary, the former governor of not
• 2:12:32
  Speaker 1: Dakota is pretty pro nuclear. So I think that people
• 2:12:35
  Speaker 1: within the Trump administration and here, I mean the good
• 2:12:38
  Speaker 1: news is Trump is that Alex is really having an impact.
• 2:12:42
  Speaker 1: I think Alex has real, really significantly had an impact
• 2:12:46
  Speaker 1: on the way people think about nuclear. So congratulations to
• 2:12:50
  Speaker 1: Alec Alex, and I think he has he has real
• 2:12:54
  Speaker 1: influence among certain people within the Trump administration, particularly those
• 2:13:00
  Speaker 1: people involved in energy like Secretary Right and and and
• 2:13:06
  Speaker 1: people involved in environmental regulation. Richard, how did France keep
• 2:13:13
  Speaker 1: from losing its nerve and build out the nuclear infrastructure?
• 2:13:17
  Speaker 1: I mean, basically it was again, it was because essentially
• 2:13:22
  Speaker 1: commanded that the people at the center of it, the
• 2:13:25
  Speaker 1: bureaucrats in charge, looked at the science and stuck with it.
• 2:13:30
  Speaker 1: And and they they they didn't panic over the over
• 2:13:34
  Speaker 1: the environmental stuff, you know, and you know, they they
• 2:13:39
  Speaker 1: took us when global warming, you know, the whole hysteria
• 2:13:43
  Speaker 1: over Seal two happened. They that reinforced their decision around
• 2:13:49
  Speaker 1: nuclear because they were the you know, lowest permitted, lowest
• 2:13:56
  Speaker 1: emission CO two country in the EU, and that causes
• 2:14:01
  Speaker 1: them to it reinforced the commitment to nuclear. Liam is
• 2:14:09
  Speaker 1: Alex still influential on Trump in the circles. I mean
• 2:14:12
  Speaker 1: he's influential among some people in the Trumpet deministration. I
• 2:14:14
  Speaker 1: wouldn't say inner circles, but certainly among the people responsible
• 2:14:17
  Speaker 1: for energy policy. Yes, I think he's quite influential there
• 2:14:26
  Speaker 1: normadive Ranroid. Have there been any advances regarding nuclear waste
• 2:14:31
  Speaker 1: or recycling waste materials, Yes, they have been. There are
• 2:14:36
  Speaker 1: a number of nuclear power plants, small nuclear pop plants,
• 2:14:41
  Speaker 1: the small reactors that are built to use used materials,
• 2:14:48
  Speaker 1: waste materials, so they take the waste materials and they
• 2:14:52
  Speaker 1: turn them into energy. I think there's advances in storage,
• 2:14:58
  Speaker 1: but yes, there's constant work on that. The French are
• 2:15:00
  Speaker 1: very good at recycling waste materials. That's why there's no
• 2:15:06
  Speaker 1: big storage conflict in France. The pop plants are very
• 2:15:10
  Speaker 1: good at recycling. So yes, the technology keeps getting better
• 2:15:15
  Speaker 1: about how to deal with it. All right, let's see,
• 2:15:31
  Speaker 1: all right, let's let's take your more general questions. Now,
• 2:15:36
  Speaker 1: thank you again Richard for doing the nuclear I think
• 2:15:38
  Speaker 1: that took up all the nuclear power questions, just to
• 2:15:43
  Speaker 1: remind you, three twenty dollars questions, and we make our
• 2:15:45
  Speaker 1: third hour goal We're well into the third third hour,
• 2:15:48
  Speaker 1: so it would be appropriate one fifty would get us
• 2:15:52
  Speaker 1: to within ten dollars, so please consider doing that. Stickers,
• 2:15:57
  Speaker 1: A bunch of stickers like five, ten, two three dollars
• 2:16:01
  Speaker 1: stickers would really help us get to the goal. Let
• 2:16:03
  Speaker 1: me just thank some of the stick of people before
• 2:16:05
  Speaker 1: we continue with the questions. I'll thank Jeremy and fifty dollars.
• 2:16:11
  Speaker 1: Thank you, really appreciate that, s IF fifty dollars sticker.
• 2:16:15
  Speaker 1: And Jason Jason Adams, and let's see, let's see, let's see,
• 2:16:23
  Speaker 1: let's see, let's se let's see. Who else do we
• 2:16:25
  Speaker 1: have here? We have CP Milking, Jonathan Honing, Stephen Harper,
• 2:16:30
  Speaker 1: and we have Thomas, and we have Mary Ellen and
• 2:16:38
  Speaker 1: Steven Yep, thank you, guys, really appreciate all the stickers.
• 2:16:44
  Speaker 1: There's still one hundred people watching. There's still a bunch
• 2:16:47
  Speaker 1: of you who haven't done a sticker, So just do
• 2:16:49
  Speaker 1: something at whatever level. We should be able to chip
• 2:16:52
  Speaker 1: away at the sixty one dollars and get it down
• 2:16:54
  Speaker 1: to zero here pretty pretty quickly. All right. Jeffrey, Hey, Jeffrey,
• 2:17:03
  Speaker 1: uh oh, I'll see you in a few days Thursday. Yeah,
• 2:17:07
  Speaker 1: so send me any details I need for the restaurant, when, when,
• 2:17:12
  Speaker 1: and where we're meeting exactly, all right, Jeffrey says, do
• 2:17:15
  Speaker 1: you think Lillian Riaden would have been written differently after
• 2:17:19
  Speaker 1: the Sexual Revolution? Did Rand write much about it? The
• 2:17:23
  Speaker 1: Sexual Revolution? She didn't really. I mean, I think she
• 2:17:29
  Speaker 1: was for it in a sense, but she thought it
• 2:17:33
  Speaker 1: also became overly promiscuous. I mean, she wrote obviously about
• 2:17:36
  Speaker 1: the permisecurity of the New Left and they kind of
• 2:17:39
  Speaker 1: the Woodstock generation. I don't know. I don't know, but
• 2:17:45
  Speaker 1: I don't think she wrote much about the Sexual Revolution.
• 2:17:47
  Speaker 1: I wish she had. And in terms of Lilian, would
• 2:17:54
  Speaker 1: she've written her differently? I don't think so. And I
• 2:17:59
  Speaker 1: think that issue around sex that Rearden represents and it
• 2:18:04
  Speaker 1: Lilyan exploits still happens even post sexual Revolution less, but
• 2:18:13
  Speaker 1: I think still happens. It's still out there. But you know,
• 2:18:17
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, she quite possibly would have
• 2:18:21
  Speaker 1: given new information, new attitudes. Maybe she would have dealt
• 2:18:26
  Speaker 1: with different with sex differently in Outlas Shrugged or with
• 2:18:31
  Speaker 1: Lily and differently in Outli Shrugged. I just don't know
• 2:18:33
  Speaker 1: she was a genius. I'm not. James has the American
• 2:18:37
  Speaker 1: sense of life done a good job of stopping trump Ism. No,
• 2:18:42
  Speaker 1: I mean no, I mean the reality is that trump
• 2:18:47
  Speaker 1: Ism is going strong and Trump got elected. That is
• 2:18:53
  Speaker 1: not a good sign for the American sis of life.
• 2:18:56
  Speaker 1: And yeah, I mean it. Congress is impotent in the
• 2:19:02
  Speaker 1: face of so at the edges when it goes overboard,
• 2:19:06
  Speaker 1: like like with ice and you know, and with what else.
• 2:19:13
  Speaker 1: You know. The court system is what has really stood
• 2:19:15
  Speaker 1: up to Trump, and we talked about that on a
• 2:19:18
  Speaker 1: previous show. The court system, our constitution is what's held
• 2:19:22
  Speaker 1: him back, not the American sense of life. Sadly, whoops accidentally, James,
• 2:19:31
  Speaker 1: is there evidence that has been caught throwing up most
• 2:19:33
  Speaker 1: of the taffs has helped the economy and boosted the
• 2:19:36
  Speaker 1: stock market, not really, because they threw it out and
• 2:19:40
  Speaker 1: then Trump imposed new ones and then now those new
• 2:19:44
  Speaker 1: ones are being ruled illegal and Trump is threatening other ones.
• 2:19:48
  Speaker 1: So tavs are still i mean, the less of a
• 2:19:52
  Speaker 1: dragon economy because they're being refunded, and so some companies
• 2:19:57
  Speaker 1: are benefiting from that, which could be helping the stock market. Okay,
• 2:20:01
  Speaker 1: but they're still holding the market back is down certainly
• 2:20:04
  Speaker 1: about where the whole tariff goes. I do think the
• 2:20:07
  Speaker 1: market is more optimistic about the court's willingness to throw
• 2:20:11
  Speaker 1: out Trump tariffs over and over and over again, and
• 2:20:15
  Speaker 1: that might be helping boost some stock prices. Not to
• 2:20:22
  Speaker 1: have aage algorithm. Do collectivistic systems ultimately get reversed because
• 2:20:29
  Speaker 1: they don't want to live like cockroaches? Intellectuals can't stop
• 2:20:32
  Speaker 1: people from finding ways out. Well, I mean yeah, but
• 2:20:36
  Speaker 1: it could take a very long time, and people have
• 2:20:40
  Speaker 1: to have the idea of individualism and have to be
• 2:20:42
  Speaker 1: willing to fight for it. I mean, look at you
• 2:20:43
  Speaker 1: Ron forty seven years later, it's still an authoritarian place.
• 2:20:50
  Speaker 1: A majority of people would like it to change, and
• 2:20:53
  Speaker 1: yet they don't have the power to change it. Look
• 2:20:56
  Speaker 1: at how long the Soviet Union existed. Look at authoritarian China.
• 2:21:01
  Speaker 1: So I don't know, it can take a long time.
• 2:21:05
  Speaker 1: A long time, and it's hard to leave, particularly when
• 2:21:08
  Speaker 1: countries like America won't accept you as an immigrant. Notch
• 2:21:14
  Speaker 1: Havers algorithm. Did Hitler even go to college? Where did
• 2:21:17
  Speaker 1: he absorb all the content philosophy? Well, remember, you don't
• 2:21:21
  Speaker 1: absorb kantient philosophy from college. You absorb kantient philosophy from
• 2:21:26
  Speaker 1: the culture. Content. Philosophy by that time was in the
• 2:21:30
  Speaker 1: culture over one hundred years, and it infiltrated into every
• 2:21:34
  Speaker 1: aspect of the culture, the art, the intellectuals, the schools
• 2:21:40
  Speaker 1: from grade pre k too all the way. And it
• 2:21:43
  Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily manifest coaw philosophy manifest in people's attitudes towards things,
• 2:21:48
  Speaker 1: even if they don't know the philosophical roots. You don't
• 2:21:51
  Speaker 1: have to study Kant to be influenced by his philosophy. Now,
• 2:21:57
  Speaker 1: if you want to see the process by which the
• 2:22:00
  Speaker 1: happens and which it happened in Nazi Germany, read Ominous
• 2:22:06
  Speaker 1: powows Lena Peacock's Hominist Pollows. It's not that all the
• 2:22:10
  Speaker 1: Germans read cons It's a KNT was part of educational system.
• 2:22:18
  Speaker 1: How many Christians read the Bible? Very few, but it's
• 2:22:22
  Speaker 1: part of how they live because it's inculcated in them.
• 2:22:26
  Speaker 1: How many people have really thought about altruism and studied
• 2:22:29
  Speaker 1: altruism and maybe even read Augustine Kump, the guy who
• 2:22:33
  Speaker 1: came up with the idea of altruism and named it altruism.
• 2:22:37
  Speaker 1: The idea of altruism comes from Jesus, but the idea
• 2:22:40
  Speaker 1: of the naming of altruism. How many people have read
• 2:22:43
  Speaker 1: the simmon in the amount and understood it? Very few,
• 2:22:49
  Speaker 1: and yet altruisms everywhere because it doesn't take a lot
• 2:22:53
  Speaker 1: of people to read it. It just takes it to
• 2:22:55
  Speaker 1: be become because of the intellectuals, a part of the culture,
• 2:22:58
  Speaker 1: part of the every educational experience from parenting to school
• 2:23:03
  Speaker 1: that people have nomadev Android, thank you for the ten dollars.
• 2:23:10
  Speaker 1: Really really appreciate that we're down to thirty three dollars
• 2:23:13
  Speaker 1: to make it to our goal thirty three dollars. A
• 2:23:16
  Speaker 1: few stickers, even small ones will get us there. Oh
• 2:23:19
  Speaker 1: Rand just got us there with his fifty Australian dollars.
• 2:23:26
  Speaker 1: Ran says thorium wasn't mentioned in your section on nuclear
• 2:23:29
  Speaker 1: How viable do you think thorium is as a fuel
• 2:23:32
  Speaker 1: source and is this the next step in the energy
• 2:23:34
  Speaker 1: density journey? You know, I don't know, That's why it
• 2:23:38
  Speaker 1: wasn't mansioned. I know that there are plants for thorium
• 2:23:42
  Speaker 1: plants potentially in Scandinavia, but you know, this is where
• 2:23:47
  Speaker 1: you need the marketplace to determine right. People need to
• 2:23:49
  Speaker 1: build the plants and it needs to be competition and
• 2:23:52
  Speaker 1: I don't know everything that goes into it, the costs.
• 2:23:55
  Speaker 1: I mean, supposedly it's it's completely recyclable, there's no dollar
• 2:24:03
  Speaker 1: of risks. I mean, it sounds perfect. But why haven't
• 2:24:08
  Speaker 1: they been built. Why haven't they been even built? Why
• 2:24:10
  Speaker 1: the Chinese building them so in thorium is available, it's
• 2:24:14
  Speaker 1: getting everything it can be minded. So let's see what
• 2:24:18
  Speaker 1: the market determines. I don't have a scientific view of
• 2:24:22
  Speaker 1: any of these things. I don't even have a scientific
• 2:24:25
  Speaker 1: view that says, yeah, we should have nuclear nuclear works.
• 2:24:30
  Speaker 1: I just want all the barriers to be eliminated and
• 2:24:33
  Speaker 1: let the market happen. Maybe it turns out natural gas
• 2:24:37
  Speaker 1: is so cheap right now that nuclear doesn't start up
• 2:24:40
  Speaker 1: really again for another ten years. I don't think that's true.
• 2:24:43
  Speaker 1: But maybe My point is not this is what we need,
• 2:24:48
  Speaker 1: and we need this particular type of nuclear in this
• 2:24:51
  Speaker 1: particular type of material uranium or thorium or something else.
• 2:24:56
  Speaker 1: My point is we need freedom, and when we have freedom,
• 2:25:00
  Speaker 1: you know, beautiful things will happen. If we deregulate nuclear,
• 2:25:05
  Speaker 1: then nuclear becomes competitive, and then we'll see in the
• 2:25:07
  Speaker 1: competition who wins, and which design wins, and which material
• 2:25:11
  Speaker 1: wins and SMRs are big nuclear pop plants and big
• 2:25:14
  Speaker 1: nuclear pope plants are the uranium other thorium. Is there
• 2:25:18
  Speaker 1: a chance of fusion? I mean a million different options.
• 2:25:22
  Speaker 1: But that's the beauty of competition, that's the beauty of freedom. Wes,
• 2:25:28
  Speaker 1: thank you, thank you for the sticker. I really appreciate
• 2:25:30
  Speaker 1: that we have met our goals and a little bit
• 2:25:33
  Speaker 1: more than that. So I appreciate everybody's support today. Thank you,
• 2:25:36
  Speaker 1: first of all Richard and everybody else who stepped in
• 2:25:40
  Speaker 1: and summer late to the show. Canada is looking to
• 2:25:43
  Speaker 1: build multiple reactors at multiple sites. Good for Canada. Provensla
• 2:25:48
  Speaker 1: Boat Alberta is looking to join the nuclear energy protection
• 2:25:52
  Speaker 1: front worth paying attention to. Unfortunately, trend is government driven. Yeah,
• 2:25:58
  Speaker 1: you know in Canada, it's going to be governed driven.
• 2:26:01
  Speaker 1: But it's better than than the alternative of not doing
• 2:26:05
  Speaker 1: any nuclear So good. And let's hope there's a there's
• 2:26:10
  Speaker 1: a rational, relatively rational regulatory regime over there and that
• 2:26:18
  Speaker 1: you know, the government's push will actually generate ultimately a marketplace,
• 2:26:23
  Speaker 1: a market for nuclear all right, Kim says, love the
• 2:26:30
  Speaker 1: Frankfurt segment with Nikos, very interesting topic. Great, I mean
• 2:26:33
  Speaker 1: We're going to be doing a lot more of these,
• 2:26:35
  Speaker 1: so stay tuned. MP creates love the human achievement segment
• 2:26:42
  Speaker 1: in these shows, consider moving it to the front to
• 2:26:44
  Speaker 1: begin with something positive interesting, begin with something positive, or
• 2:26:48
  Speaker 1: end with something positive. Hord to tell Kim, is generational
• 2:26:54
  Speaker 1: trauma a legitimate concept or is it just something determinous believe?
• 2:27:00
  Speaker 1: I think it can be a legitimate concept. I think
• 2:27:04
  Speaker 1: COVID was a generational trauma, was a trauma that all children,
• 2:27:08
  Speaker 1: all young people experienced college agent and I mean all
• 2:27:11
  Speaker 1: of us experience in some sense, but certainly younger generation
• 2:27:15
  Speaker 1: experience more harshly. I think nine to eleven was a
• 2:27:18
  Speaker 1: generational trauma, and I think the financial crisis was. We've
• 2:27:23
  Speaker 1: had three in twenty six years, which is a lot,
• 2:27:26
  Speaker 1: and it explains some of the attitudes that people have
• 2:27:29
  Speaker 1: today and some of the misery and alienation and depression
• 2:27:34
  Speaker 1: that people have. So I do think it's I think
• 2:27:36
  Speaker 1: it's a real thing. It's not deterministic. It's just the
• 2:27:39
  Speaker 1: fact of Wow, this horrible thing happened. How do I
• 2:27:43
  Speaker 1: deal with it? And it happened to all of us,
• 2:27:46
  Speaker 1: So I think a lot of people affected by it,
• 2:27:48
  Speaker 1: and one of the things that turns it into trauma
• 2:27:51
  Speaker 1: is when our government and our intellectuals deal with it
• 2:27:55
  Speaker 1: wrongly and badly. And that's true of COVID, it's true
• 2:27:58
  Speaker 1: of the financial crisis, and it's true of nine to eleven.
• 2:28:01
  Speaker 1: Our politicians and our intellectuals screwed it up and created
• 2:28:05
  Speaker 1: a trauma. It didn't have to be, all right, MP creates.
• 2:28:12
  Speaker 1: Peak capitalism is when an online search engine company is
• 2:28:15
  Speaker 1: so profitable they can eliminate mosquitoes as a side project
• 2:28:19
  Speaker 1: human achievement. Yes, I wouldn't call it peak capitalism because
• 2:28:22
  Speaker 1: we don't have capitalism and we're far from peak. But
• 2:28:25
  Speaker 1: it's cool. It's one of the cool aspects of capitalism.
• 2:28:32
  Speaker 1: Baker Uron, could you get have you been throwing out
• 2:28:35
  Speaker 1: on to discuss philosophical problems with preventive law regulations? He
• 2:28:39
  Speaker 1: has some great things to say, Yes he does, and
• 2:28:42
  Speaker 1: I'll have him on sometime. And if I don't bring
• 2:28:44
  Speaker 1: that up, then certainly come on the super Chat and
• 2:28:47
  Speaker 1: ask that question and we'll get We'll get him to
• 2:28:48
  Speaker 1: talk about it. That's the beauty of the Superchat. En
• 2:28:52
  Speaker 1: Soma a friendly reminder that is easier for you on
• 2:28:55
  Speaker 1: to enrich weapon grade uranium that it is for peaceful
• 2:28:58
  Speaker 1: European countries to enrich for domestic energy. Yeah. Absolutely, because
• 2:29:04
  Speaker 1: they've they've invested in it, they've invested in it. Fantastic.
• 2:29:10
  Speaker 1: Thank you again, Richard, Thank you to all of you.
• 2:29:12
  Speaker 1: I hope you enjoyed the show. I hope you got
• 2:29:15
  Speaker 1: something out of it, out of the the Nuclear energy show.
• 2:29:23
  Speaker 1: I will see you all tomorrow. There won't be a
• 2:29:26
  Speaker 1: lot of shows this week. I am traveling Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday,
• 2:29:30
  Speaker 1: so I'm not sure if I'll do any shows during
• 2:29:32
  Speaker 1: that period. I'm kind of on vacation, so but there
• 2:29:38
  Speaker 1: will be a show tomorrow, so don't miss the show tomorrow.
• 2:29:41
  Speaker 1: Thank you to all of you, and I will see
• 2:29:43
  Speaker 1: you up one more. You on your scripted sections have
• 2:29:46
  Speaker 1: a very AI generated feel to them, do they what
• 2:29:49
  Speaker 1: was scripted? What was AI? So? Yeah, I mean I
• 2:29:53
  Speaker 1: definitely use AI for research and for you know, for
• 2:30:00
  Speaker 1: certain parts of it. But you know it's this is
• 2:30:05
  Speaker 1: not what I do is not fully scripted. Thank you
• 2:30:10
  Speaker 1: w c Z and all right, guys, thank you, I'll
• 2:30:18
  Speaker 1: see you tomorrow. Bye, everybody,