reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In Oak Ridge, Tennessee, we're constructing three phases of experimental nuclear power plants known as small modular reactors (SMRs). These SMRs are designed to be smaller, more affordable, and safer than conventional power plants, utilizing fuel pebbles instead of fuel rods. These pebbles contain simulated uranium specs and byproducts. Google is our client, aiming to achieve net-zero emissions and requiring substantial clean power due to increased AI usage. Kairos Power plans to build a fleet of these SMRs, targeting a 2030 completion date, to provide Google with clean and safe nuclear power for the long term.

The speaker's company is building infrastructure for both technology and renewable energy industries, playing a central role in a complex landscape. Technology customers demand immediate and clean power, while utilities consider affordability for ratepayers and state regulations. The company facilitates discussions between these stakeholders, aiming to deliver projects on time and within budget for all clients. The company builds about 25% of renewable power generation in North America. This unique position allows them to listen to all parties and contribute to solutions in an exciting time for the business.

Canada has opportunities in carbon capture, small modular reactors, and hydrogen, and could be a clean energy superpower. Mark Carney's ideas about energy omit the fact that Canada produces less than 1.5% of total global emissions. Even if Canada were wiped off the map, it wouldn't matter. Also, about 96% of all the machinery for climate change is made in China.

Joe Biden's energy policies are causing high inflation and hitting American families hard. He reversed actions that achieved energy independence and canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline. By reentering the Paris climate accord and blocking new oil, gas, and coal production, he is raising energy costs and hurting industries like food, shipping, and manufacturing. China benefits from these high energy prices, driving our heavy industry overseas. To become an advanced manufacturing nation, we need low-cost energy. Biden's energy agenda aligns with China's, as they sign global climate deals and break them. When I'm back in the White House, I'll bring back a pro-American energy policy, eliminating unnecessary regulations and approving energy projects quickly. This will create jobs, restore hope, and make America great again.

The speaker states they will achieve net zero by February 1950, with specific, measurable short-term targets set for 2025 and February 1930. They also believe they will profit from this initiative, as the world is moving in this direction. They express confidence that being carbon competitive will create value.

Speaker 0 notes that the energy solutions list for energy-hungry data centers was short and contained one thing: gas. They ask why not gas and renewables. Speaker 1 responds: "the what one has to appreciate is the intensity of energy." As an engineer, they state: "the mix of energy doesn't matter. How much is wind? How much solar? We like to advertise that. Kilohounces matter because energy intensity has to shift, not the mix." They argue that solar power cannot produce cement or steel and that "they are very energy intensive." Therefore, "you still need a gas based heating or" (implying gas is necessary). They add: "Physics. It's against physics. Fine. Absolutely. Physics don't allow do it." They emphasize evaluating energy mix changes in the context of "jewels of energy," noting the world still needs to progress and must build infrastructure—steel, cement, fuels. The challenge is how to change the energy mix while also building data centers and consuming more energy. They describe the current problem as "single threaded with the gas fired power plant, maybe a little bit of nuclear. Nuclear? Renewable remain in the mix, cannot bring the amount of jewels we need to produce this infrastructure which is required in the world."

The speaker discusses the limitations of relying solely on wind, solar, and battery power for an industrialized economy. They mention the high cost of battery storage for renewable energy, emphasizing the need for base load power to ensure a reliable energy grid. The speaker stresses the importance of practical solutions over fantasy thinking in addressing energy needs.

We outlined our green prosperity plan for clean power by 2030 at a conference. We aim to partner with businesses for this transition to renewable energy. It's crucial for the UK to be present on the global stage, especially in addressing the climate crisis. We believe in an active state that collaborates with the private sector to seize opportunities for the future. The absence of the UK at Davos was disappointing, and we hope for a change in government to lead in this area.

Canada has opportunities in carbon capture, small modular reactors, and hydrogen, and could be a clean energy superpower. Mark Carney's ideas about energy omit the fact that Canada produces less than 1.5% of total global emissions. Even if Canada were wiped off the map, it wouldn't matter. Also, about 96% of all the machinery for climate change is made in China.

I'm asking when the thousands of fossil fuel industry workers, who are now out of work because of a Biden EO, can expect to get their promised green jobs. I welcome you to present data showing these people won't get green jobs. Richard Trumka wished the President had paired the Keystone EO with a plan for creating new jobs. The Laborers International Union of North America says the Keystone decision will cost thousands of existing and projected jobs. The President plans to share details of a plan to create millions of good union jobs and tackle the climate crisis in the weeks ahead. Many believe investment in infrastructure will boost the US economy, create good-paying union jobs, and advance our climate and clean energy goals.

A speaker asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much global temperatures would decrease if the U.S. spent $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050. The Deputy Secretary states that every country needs to act, and the U.S. accounts for 13% of global emissions. The speaker repeats the question, but the Deputy Secretary says it's a global problem and the U.S. needs to reduce its emissions. The speaker asks how much of a reduction would result if the U.S. does its part. The Deputy Secretary reiterates that the U.S. is 13% of global emissions, and if the U.S. went to zero emissions, that would be 13%. The speaker accuses the Deputy Secretary of wanting to spend $50 trillion without knowing if it will reduce world temperatures.

The owner of the resource asserts their responsibility to manage emissions and rejects the idea that the federal government can do it better. When asked about public support for an emissions cap, the speaker questions the numbers and provides examples of emissions reduction in electricity and methane. They mention industry efforts to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 through technology rather than production cuts. The speaker argues against shutting down production, stating the negative consequences it would have on revenue and healthcare. They emphasize that Albertans and the federal government should not support such a production cut.

Companies and governments need to prioritize long-term sustainability peacefully. Agriculture must play a key role in achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Transitioning to a low-energy lifestyle is crucial for a sustainable future. TerraPower is developing a nuclear power plant to combat climate change. The push for net zero faces challenges from coal use in China and India. Iodine deficiency is a major global issue addressed by X3 iodine supplement. Visit infowarsstore.com for discounted products supporting the broadcast.

Copper and aluminum are the primary beneficiaries of the grid spending increase. That $800,000,000,000 is going to buy copper, which is money. The oil market, compared to the metals market, is dwarfed by the demand for metals like copper, aluminum, iron ore, gold, and nickel, which are said to be so thinly traded and critical that there is no chance to get off crude oil. You can’t build electric cars, windmills, solar, or a modern military without these metals. Underwater power cables are expensive, and offshore wind and bringing that electricity green requires copper—copper, copper, copper. Copper now is described as a trillion-dollar annual market by tomorrow morning. There is no copper inventory to meet this demand. Since Mohenjo Daro, humanity has mined 700,000,000 metric tons of copper. If we put that in a big cube for scale (about 4 thirty-meter sides), approximately 80% of all the copper ever mined is still in human possession. Recycling could recover about 80% of that 700,000,000 tons, but it would require tearing down every building in the United States, Europe, Japan, and China. We can recycle copper from buildings and even from the university in front of us, but the consequence would be living in the dark. Currently, we consume 30,000,000 tons of copper per year, with only 4,000,000 tons recycled. To maintain 3% GDP growth with no electrification, this speaker claims we must mine the same amount of copper in the next eighteen years as we mined in the last ten thousand years. In the next eighteen years, we would need to mine the same copper volume as mined in the entire previous span of human history, without electrification, without data centers, without solar and wind, and without the greening of the world economy. Since 1900, the energy required to produce copper has increased sixteen-fold, and as ore grades decline, more energy is needed to produce the same metal while water consumption has doubled. Grades are declining globally, and easy copper mines are depleted; Chile is highlighted as a major producer (24% of global copper mine production), yet costs are in the third or fourth quartile. They burn coal in the Chilean grid, and solar is ineffective for mining because the sun only shines a few hours a day; solar is useless without grid-scale storage. The speaker asserts we are heading for a train wreck in Chile and that we need six giant tier-one mines online every year from now until 2050 to meet copper demand for electrification, data centers, and grid upgrades—40% of the production to come from new mines. All the hype about AI is dismissed as fantasy because we do not have the energy. Nuclear power is proposed as a solution, but what are those plants made of? All the metals mentioned earlier. The country reportedly does not have the capability to weld containment vessels in a traditional nuclear power plant anymore, whereas Korea can build a nuclear power plant.

Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrats want to shut down all US coal plants, despite the lessons learned in Germany and other places. Meanwhile, China is rapidly building one large coal plant per week. This is concerning because it seems like the USA is heading towards self-destruction. We must prevent this from happening by eliminating the Green News scam, which is a total fraud and is detrimental to our country.

I appreciate the Repetor's well-informed and researched draft report on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). SMRs are a quick, safe, and economical way to bring existing nuclear technologies to the market. The IPCC and the International Energy Agency also support the inclusion of large reactors and SMRs in the energy mix of the 2030s. However, the current EU regulatory framework creates an unfair advantage for renewable energy, excluding nuclear energy from benefits like subsidies and grid access. I propose a level playing field for all forms of low carbon energy, including nuclear, to ensure energy security, independence, and decarbonization. Nuclear power plants are clean, reliable, and affordable, making them crucial for addressing carbon emissions, clean air, land preservation, poverty alleviation, and energy security. Let's make the wise choice. Thank you.

The transcript argues that if emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear energy would dominate the market today. It contends that nuclear is the safest energy source per unit of power produced, and it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions, being lower than coal, gas, and even wind and solar. It also asserts that nuclear plants operate at a high capacity factor, running 93% of the time, and claims that wind and solar do not approach that level of reliability. Additionally, the speaker provides a comparative land-use claim: a one gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes, whereas wind and solar require vastly more land, materials, and backup batteries for the same amount of power. Based on these points, the speaker argues that, if climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear, and that the rest is merely theater. Specific points highlighted include: - Nuclear is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. - Nuclear has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions, lower than coal, gas, wind, and solar. - Nuclear runs 93% of the time, implying a higher reliability or capacity factor compared to wind and solar, which are described as not coming anywhere near that level. - Land-use efficiency is cited in favor of nuclear: a 1 GW plant on about one square mile powering 750,000 homes. - In contrast, wind and solar are said to require vastly more land, materials, and backup batteries for the same power output. - The overarching claim is that, for climate goals, nuclear should be the primary answer; the remainder is characterized as theater. In sum, the speaker presents nuclear energy as superior in safety, emissions, reliability, and land-use efficiency relative to wind and solar, positing nuclear as the logically preferred solution for emissions reduction and energy provision if climate discussions were sincere.