 Yeah. So kind of staying on topic about the nuclear power thing. Yep. For the last five years, I read my local newspaper every week on the weekend issue, Sunday issue. They have 10 local economists. They're like professors or a business person or a consultant or they call them economists. And they ask them some question. And it's a yes or no question. Then they give a little blurb. And I can't remember ever hearing in five years a single thing Good said about nuclear power. And then today in the most recent one, the question was, is California, it's a grid, too reliant on renewable energy? And there are four out of 10 had a positive mention of how nuclear power, new nuclear, should be part of the discussions of if you're serious about greenhouse gases. And these are all just like either from, in standard political jargon, just either to the left or progressive or moderate maybe some of them. So I don't know if there's some memo that got out that said, OK, it's approved now. We're allowed to start talking about nuclear or we can say some good things about it. But we've gone from five years of only bad to in the same day, four out of 10 economists are giving some sort of thumbs up on it. I definitely think there's been a movement over the last few years that's become more positive about nuclear partially because anybody who is honest and who thinks climate change is an issue. And I know some people think that's impossible to be honest and to think climate change is an issue. But I think there are a lot of honest people who think climate change is an issue. Also realize that the only solution, if you're worried about fossil fuels, is nuclear power. There is no other solution, period. And I think that has become more and more and more obvious to the better people, to the more honest people. I was just listening to John Cochran today who was one of my favorite economists. I talk about it a lot. And he thinks climate change is real. He doesn't think it's imminent or catastrophic imminently or anything. It's just imminently existential. Yeah, he doesn't believe that. But he said the only way to deal with climate change is through nuclear power. I mean, it was obvious to him, it wasn't even a question. So I think that is dawning on people. I think there's been a lot more press about nuclear power that's positive. I seen just in the science engineering kind of press, there's been a lot more discussion about new nuclear power plants being built, about new technologies, new startups being started. And then I do think there's the Bill Gates effect, right? Bill Gates is the last two, three years it's been commonly known that he's heavily invested in this one nuclear power startup. There was about to build a sample nuclear power plant in China and the Trump administration banned him from doing it because of technology transfer or something. They didn't want China to be beneficiary of this. And now it looks like the Biden administration is approving their ability to build a sample nuclear power plant in Montana, I think, that they're transforming an old coal plant into a nuclear power plant. And it looks like they're going to start construction this year with the idea that it'll be finished by 2025, which is really fast for nuclear power plant. But it's a smaller plant produces less energy but also no, it recycles everything. So no waste and relatively cheap. And so I think the fact that he has talked about it, the fact that there's real venture capital money flowing into it, I think all of that has come together to make it more acceptable. It's still true that on the left, particularly among the environmentalists, maybe it's in Wyoming, not Montana, one of those states. And among the environmentalists, it's still not acceptable at all. But yeah, I think that's one area where there's probably movement towards the positive in accepting it among, certainly among the rational people out there. Yeah, I think I saw the tide turned today. I think the writing's on the wall now for it to pick up positive momentum. Yeah, I mean, the Scandinavians, I think it's Finland. Finland is building these massive, it's just built this massive nuclear power plant. I mean, so Finland and France, I guess, Finland's other European country, they're not, they're going full throttle ahead with nuclear. They're not waiting for the rest of the world. They don't wanna be dependent on natural gas from Russia. They don't wanna be dependent on oil from the North Sea from Norway because there's some reason to believe that the Norwegians are not really investing in new fields up there because they, partially because it's state run, so they're not that forward thinking and partially because they're fundamentally anti-fossile fuels and then they're drilling for fossil fuels. So the Norwegians are kind of torn. So Finland is gonna be energy independent, basically a nuclear, and I think Sweden is as well. Somebody says, Wanda Friedman says Sweden is as well. Because they don't want these dependencies and they realize that this is the rational, technologically sound, this is the future. And one of the sad things is that the US is so behind on nuclear. And nuclear is a fascinating field because I think we went into nuclear too quickly because government subsidized it. Because of that, we built nuclear power plants that weren't that good. They were marginally less safe than otherwise and they just didn't run very efficiently and were very expensive and so on. So they became very unpopular because they were expensive and then we had three mile island. So then the environmentalist had a pseudo excuse to promote banning them. But that's because we went in too early because of government. So we never allowed the market in nuclear to evolve properly. Whereas other countries waited and they invested in nuclear only after the technology was much better. And that's why in Western Europe and in Japan, nuclear power plants are much better than they are in the US because they came on board much later. And then they had less of a crazy backlash against it. It's funny how in some ways, in some areas, Europe is saner than the US where they have less regulations. They don't quite believe in the regulatory state quite as much as we do. Debbie. So a couple of comments on that. First of all, on behalf of Alex Epstein, I have to point out solar and wind are not renewables. They are unreliables. Yes. And they are. I just an interview with Alex like an hour ago, we did a whole hour on Puerto Rico. So hopefully he'll, and we talked about nuclear and we talked about unreliables. Yeah, I was just thinking of Alex, here's this. He has to be redeemed with this. No, no, they're not renewable. Did I say anything? No, it wasn't you. Okay. Yeah, no, it was Matt. And I think that was- That was the title of the question in the newspaper. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, no worries, Matt. Yeah. And then also there's a really good book about this, about nuclear power. And it was written by, I can't remember the name because it's been many years since I've read it, but really good comprehensive book about nuclear power. And it was written by an environmentalist who learned about nuclear and about how unreliable the unreliables are. It's called Power to Save the World. So they talk a lot about the history of nuclear power and why people are so afraid of it. And then also why the wind and solar are absolutely not any kind of a path towards an industrial civilization. So it's really great. I don't know why it didn't get more exposure. Well, no, I do actually, probably because it was written by an environmentalist who kind of saw the light on that and realized that it's not. Solar and wind aren't gonna get us anywhere good. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist brought. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least a hundred. I figure at least a hundred of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to a hundred. It all it takes is a click of a thing whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there. Help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at yourunbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those please.