After decades of trying to scare Americans about nuclear energy - which is SAFE - elites are now opening up to the idea ... FOR THEIR OWN USE. Glenn reviews how Bill Gates is reopening Three Mile Island to power his Microsoft AI data centers while global elites are pushing less reliable wind and solar energy on the rest of us. "We need to have windmills, but AI can have nuclear energy?" Glenn says. "That's INSANE!"
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Have you seen that all of a sudden, nuclear power is okay?
STU: I mean, that would be a great development, for good purposes.
GLENN: Right.
Okay. So here's what's happening. We need 3,000 percent more electricity by 2032, because of AI.
So we're going to have to start rationing electricity, if we don't come up with 3,000 percent more electricity.
AI is just taking -- just gobbling energy.
All right. So now, Bill Gates and the elites, are going to start building nuclear power plants.
And we're -- we're opening up 3-mile island. Now, I mean, man!
I have to see a chiropractor, this thing swings so fast. My neck. Oh my -- you get whiplash.
So wait. Nuclear power is okay for AI.
But it's dangerous for everything else.
We've been saying, nuclear power is the way to go for a very long time. Can't have that.
It's the cleanest energy. Can't have that.
Why is it being build for AI, and not for us?
We need to have windmills, but AI can have nuclear energy. It's insane.
STU: It's insane.
Although, there are so many things here. First of all, it's fascinating, as to how stupid the efforts for global warming have been.
GLENN: Yes.
STU: Knowing this stuff was around the corner.
GLENN: Yes.
STU: The idea that we were trying to save thee percent of our energy, by getting extra energy efficient air-conditioners or whatever the hell we've been wasting our time with over the past years.
Instead of just saying, let's just get enough energy for everything everybody needs. Not to mention, we have continents. Entire continents still to still come online in this world.
We need a lot more energy. And it's so ridiculous. That we've been talking about this nonsense of cutting by three, five, 6 percent. It's so stupid.
GLENN: When we have to increase by 3,000 percent.
STU: And that's just us!
GLENN: Yes.
STU: Imagine.
GLENN: And China.
STU: There are entire nations. Like, India, China, Africa as a continent, that is largely offline completely.
So you have that. Then you have the situation where, in a way, this is exactly what the argument we've been making the entire time.
Now, it wasn't associated necessarily, directly with AI. The point is, we know we will need a lot more energy. And we need nuclear to fill that gap. We've been saying that for decades.
I mean, Michael Shellenberger did a documentary on CNN, when we were -- 2000. Mid-2000s. Late 2000s. Where he laid that all out this great detail. As an environmentalist. As this is the way it should go.
GLENN: Every serious environmentalist has said that.
I mean, this proves the point, they were only trying to collapse economies.
They were only trying to restrain the first world countries. And collapse them.
And bring them down. Now that they need nuclear energy. The elites do. Now, all of a sudden, nuclear energy is fine.
But for them. Not for us. We still need wind power. We still need solar power.
STU: I do think, if they're able to -- I am highly doubtful that they will get 3-mile island back online. Highly doubtful.
All sorts of local opposition there. Which is all going to be misguided, by the way.
But I will be very surprised if that actually happens. Think of yourself as a local politician, in Pennsylvania.
I don't know. I don't buy it. But whatever. I hope it happens.
GLENN: Money. Money. Money. Money.
STU: I know. But the money has always been there.
There's always been money for people in power.
GLENN: Yeah. But now you have Bill Gates and Google.
STU: Look, if the outcome of this, is that we get nuclear power. And it is something that becomes --
GLENN: But will we get it?
STU: Look, the bottom line, this will all feed into the grid.
And we are going to need to -- we need a certain amount of power for everybody. It -- the -- it's not really important who gets that specific power.
If that power goes -- let's say all the power goes to AI. Which is sort of a loose thing.
You can't really do anyway. But if it did, we would have more power in other areas.
GLENN: If -- unless they still continue to cripple the rest.
STU: Well, yeah. More importantly, if the stigma of nuclear power goes away, and we can build them for everybody else.
It's a really positive development.
GLENN: Yes, it is.
STU: Now, AI might kill us before it happens. It is a really positive environment.
GLENN: Yeah. They're talking about fast tracking these things.
It's 30 years. At least to be able to build a power plant.
You watch. You watch. These things will go up at lightning speed. But it will go up for Google and Microsoft. And all of the AI companies.
STU: You're way too more optimistic than me on this.
That's interesting. Because I just feel like, at the end of the day, they will try to do this, and it will fail.
GLENN: No.
STU: Look, I think it's a positive thing.
If AI and Bill Gates winds up making nuclear power, available to millions of more people.
GLENN: And that's where we disagree.
I don't think that will happen.
STU: Seriously, if they made one on their premise. And have it all feeding into them.
That means they're not pulling into the grid for other things.
We would have more energy to deal with on our own.
GLENN: And how fast are we destroying our energy?
STU: Yeah, well, very quickly, and we're not even utilizing a lot of it.
GLENN: Right. It will be power for me. No power for thee.
STU: But we need power to access. What is the AI doing -- if they're just using it on their own facilities?
And we can't turn our computers on?
Like we need to be able to access it. Companies need to be able to access it, for it to be valuable to them. So I don't know.
GLENN: Yeah, it's just crazy. Let me just ask you this. For people who say, that this election is not going to affect them personally.
Could you please call in today, and tell me, how much your power bill has gone up in the last four years, and the last year.
STU: Hmm gosh.
GLENN: Who has received a power bill. For your electricity, over the summer?
And compare it. How much has it gone up?
Just electricity. Let me ask you this: How much has your insurance gone up?
Your car insurance. Your health insurance.
Remember? You're going to save $5,000 per family. We just get Obamacare in. It will -- you haven't saved a dime. It's gone through the roof.
Everything has gone through the roof. But as they're cutting the electricity, there's one guy, who is saying, the number one thing I'm going to do, immediately, is get our power back online.
It doesn't affect you?
Really?
This -- this doesn't affect you at all?
Of course, it does.
STU: Imagine what they're going to go up to if and when AI really kicks into gear?
When we need 3,000 times, and we're only able to produce 20 percent more. Or, 3,000 percent more. Not 3,000 times more. That would be a lot. But all this power increase, we would need to deal with all this new technology.
And we can, if we're lucky, get a slight increase, if in our output. If we're lucky.
GLENN: They have been gobbling all of it.
I mean, it is. You are truly looking at Hunger Games kind of scenarios. Where the elites and the, you know -- the cities, that where all the elites live.
They will have the power.
You won't. You are really looking at Hunger Games. Without the Game.
I mean, well, maybe want.
I don't know. They love to kill people. That's the one thing they're really good at. Think about that.
No, seriously, think about how good they are at killing people. How hard they're fighting to kill people. It's their number one thing.
And we have to be able to kill our own babies. What?
We've got to be able to kill our own babies in the third trimester. That's on nobody's agenda.
In fact, how many of us have asked for any of this stuff?
Is that high on your agenda?
Moms. Moms.
Liberal women, is it high on your agenda, to be able to terminate in the third trimester?
Because that's what they're pushing for.
I don't think anybody wants that.
I don't think anybody has been like, you know what, let's bring in a whole bunch of illegals.
Hey, you know what we should do, we should bring the gangs in from Venezuela. And then give them all kinds of money.
Screw the veterans. Screw our own homeless.
Let's give foreigners all our own money. And then have them overcrowd the schools and the hospitals.
Did you vote for that? Because I didn't vote for that.
And you're not going to vote for any of the stuff that's coming your way.
This affects you. You will feel it. I think in ways, you probably have never felt politics before.
You're going to feel it in 2025. One way or another.
STU: And we have a candidate who basically won't really tell us if they're for fracking, for example.
Totally --
GLENN: No.
STU: I guess, she. That's the one thing she's actually on record saying, she's reversed herself on.
She has no reason for it. She has no -- no science of global warming has convinced her. But supposedly, because she needs to win Pennsylvania, she has changed her mind on the fracking ban.
GLENN: But not given any explanation on why.
STU: Right. Yeah.
GLENN: If you can't tell me why you haven't changed a lifetime view, you haven't changed a lifetime view.
Her record is not silent.
But she's silent on almost everything.
We're covering energy tonight.
Kamala's radical climate agenda.
That will bankrupt America.
Absolutely bankrupt it.
That's tonight at 9 o'clock on Blaze TV.
STU: We should also note, she's not giving any -- she's almost stopped flip-flopping.
Now she's not answering questions at all about what her policies are.
So I don't know which one is better. The fact that she's just kind of leaking flip-flops to reporters. That never ask any follow-up questions. Through campaign aides. Or what she's doing now. Which is not even answer -- I mean, Alex Thompson. Has been one of the journalists who has been over this.
He's at Axios, I believe. We will complain about journalists not doing their job. There are a few that are.
Alex Thompson has been one of them.
No conservative, by any means. He's just out there asking actual questions that we should expect from candidates.
So He writes.
Let me just give you a few couple of examples of this. Harris' campaign is declining to say whether she still supports decriminalizing sex work, a position she took in 2019.
Asked for a brief interview on the topic, the camp didn't respond.
Okay.
GLENN: Kind of important, especially if you care about women.
STU: Yeah. 2019. Harris pledged a series of executive actions, to unilaterally give 2 million Dreamers a path to citizenship through parole in place. We asked if she still supported those actions. Her campaign declined to say either way.
Axios asked Harris' campaign whether she was available for a five to ten-minute interview, to discuss her position on immigration. A campaign spokesperson declined.
Since she ran for DA in 2003, Harris has been an outspoken opponent of the death penalty. We asked if she was still was opposed to it, and would push for legislation or an executive order to ban it. The campaign didn't respond.
Over and over and over and over again, they have done this.
They are -- we are now seeing a presidential campaign, in which one of the candidates will not tell you what her positions are, on the topics of the day.
GLENN: And it is so amazing, because you're noticing Donald Trump's positions becoming more and more clearly. Every single day.
STU: Yeah. He's got a new one every single day, it seems like.
And he's completely fine discussing them.
And yet, his opponent seemingly has no opinions on anything.
Is that a problem?
And I keep saying this. Number one, we should give credit to people like Alex Thompson. Who are actually doing their job.
In a nonpartisan, just normal journalist way. Thank God at least one person is doing it.
Secondly. It will be very frustrating, after all of this is over. And we say, the media did nothing here.
And what will they do?
They will point back to Alex Thompson, who was the one guy who was actually asking these questions.
Right?
They will ask as if, the media did cover it here.
Here are these examples. Yes. One person is doing it.
This should be a chorus. Not just for the country and the good of the nation. But also for the good of journalism going forward.
What candidate is going to answer policy questions after this? If you let her slide into the presidency without any policy positions, who the hell is going to give them to you, next time?
Who is going to say, you know what, gosh, I did flip-flop on that.
They're all going to ignore you.