And I don't really see how it's refutable humans, and capitalism cannot be trusted. We just can't be trusted if Canada were to tomorrow, say, hey, look, we're going big on nuclear power, and we've got to be super safe with it. So these are the controls we're going to have in place. And don't worry, guys, everything's going to be fine. No meltdowns on Canadian soil, et cetera, et cetera
Deborah Pardes
@DBPardes · 1:35
I do agree that when things seem tightly regulated, time can be a thief and people lose sight of why the regulations were put there in the first place, and then they get squirreled away somewhere. And someone says we can push these over here and pull these over here. We don't need these now. Bottom line is more important than safety. I agree with you
Sudha Varadarajan
@sudha · 0:55
The Gent. While you do make a good point about nuclear fission, nuclear fusion is a completely, you know, safe way to produce power and power that that is clean and that can energize the entire world. And nuclear fusion is from all the news out there seems to be something that's going to emerge in this coming decade as a viable source of energy potentially. And in that case, that is an extremely safety source of energy compared to nuclear fission
Ryan Cartier
@Cartier · 1:12
I'm curious after Suda's comment, if you had previously done research on fission fusion and weighed that into your initial stream here. Also Sudha, I'm curious if Terra Power Intellectual Ventures has a method to consume spent uranium. And I was curious if your comments or your suggestion was around that it looks like they're about to start a pilot project to start to reduce the Gent uranium to prove their reactor technology
Ryan Cartier
@Cartier · 4:26
I can see you finding points that are supportive of your argument without a blanket statement because it's not everyone, it's a percentage. And if you look at the circumstances in that percentage, I think you'll be able to find some commonalities. Right. So I actually did look up Canadian accidents because I thought, well, we don't have any Canadian accidents, do we? But instead of just spoting my opinion, I looked it up and we do
Sudha Varadarajan
@sudha · 1:10
And also the other challenge is the available amount of hydrogen isotopes in the planet, that there is a very fixed amount of that available. So those are some of the challenges with fusion that people are trying to figure out. But when it comes to safety, there's nothing radioactive in the fusion reaction. So it is much safer than any fission reaction
The Gent YYC
@TheGentYYC · 4:36
And it's all about removing regulations so that you can maximize shareholder returns. That's capitalism. That's the ideology, and you don't need every if you scale up. So everybody is using this technology or basically any technology if you scale up
The Gent YYC
@TheGentYYC · 1:29
Final point to Mr. Cartier, to clarify when I say humans can't be trusted or we can't trust capitalism. What I really should be saying is humans, in aggregate, can't be trusted to ensure those safeguards remain sacred and to make sure it's capitalism proof and that it's safe from lobbyists going into politicians saying, what can we just get rid of this?
Ryan Cartier
@Cartier · 3:32
I don't even think that was necessarily the case, but do you have examples where these are not private companies that have advanced the RND to a point that now it's cost feasible and competitive to get off of fossil fuels
Ryan Cartier
@Cartier · 4:58
If you just look at the last 200 years, the numbers are staggering in terms of the percentage of human beings that have been born in the last 200 years relative to the rest of human history. If you think those systems are the problem, you are the problem. That's the basic principle. Okay, combine that with a money based system and see money as votes. So you get to do whatever you want with it, because you have freedom and you make choices
Ryan Cartier
@Cartier · 5:00
And you have to start thinking intergenerationally, not in the next one or two years. What's going to happen? Why capitalism might not be good in the next one or two years. Think of it over periods of 25, 5100 years. When you start thinking intergenerationally and just accept that it works the best way, you can be part of it. And if you want to change the world, be part of it, be successful and use your resources to make it better
Ryan Cartier
@Cartier · 3:28
It's genuinely not a question of whether it goes up or down. It's just a question of whether you accept it's the best system. And if you want to participate or not, guess what. If you make the choice every day not to participate, what do you think you get in return? Nothing. It's a meritocratic system. The real question when you look at that number there. So 2018 81 point 97 trillion. The real question is, how much do you want?
Ryan Cartier
@Cartier · 4:22
A lot of people identify profit as a negative driver, which it can be. Do they also recognize it being a positive driver and a source of innovation? Often, private companies are much better run than government entities. I still see a combination of appropriate regulation to temper the Cowboys and freedom to innovate as working quite well. Okay, there's a balance. It's a Gray area. People don't like Gray. It doesn't matter if they don't like Gray
Ryan Cartier
@Cartier · 4:59
Okay, safety and cost might be the strongest supporters for the argument against nuclear as it only takes one failure in evaluation that one failure may need to be more heavily weighted due to the impact. For example, if solar fails, maybe just goes to the landfill, whereas if a wind turbine collapses, it may have a slightly higher failure rating. However, nuclear failure would be exponentially higher weighted and invites more than one waiting because you have initial radiation impact, the length of ongoing impact, perhaps others
Ryan Cartier
@Cartier · 0:57
You might be able to have an interview with both of them. You know what? You could even do that for the Climate Show and then have another one with them on here, or maybe do this with multiple people. I think there's a lot of possibilities because discussion probably needs feedback from a number of people who have background in it, which none of us really have all that