test. test.

captioning performed by vitac >> -- and neglect the fact that any power plant that's being built to burn gas will actually have very expensive firm transportation costs that and becomes part of the fixed costs but people often neglect to mention that, yes, my plan costs $800 million and on a net present value base it's going to cost mother $400 million. it's a hidden discussion, people forget that. with respect to the global issue i think the issue is really the fact that believe if you shut

down every coal firepower plant in the situates we would have solved our global issue. it's not like sulfur dioxide where local produced -- carbon is a global issue. the ex thaent concern is to get carbon emissions lower it's a marathon it's not a sprint. there's no particular advantage immediately shutting down coal-fired power plants. the goal would be to figure out the long term solution that ultimately reduces carbon, hopefully through carbon capture but by whatever means in order to basically address the issue, but it is a marathon it is not a sprin sprint. >> i'd like to suggest it's carbon capture, utilization and storage. the utilization is critical. enhanced recovery is a major portion of that equation. it's ccus.

the u is so critical because it provides the economic incentive to produce to next barrel of oil without having to drill the next well or creating an additional footprint somewhere or importing a barrel from somewhere else in the world, god knows what they're doing there, right? and so we have a chance here in this country for not just the energy that's produced electrically, but the energy that we can get from the production of the next barrel of oil, utilizing c02 that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere, it's utilized for enhanced oil recovery, we produce more barrels, get more out of the discovery work we're paying for and doing, we safely and permanently store that c02. you could make an argument from a lifecycle standpoint that you're really actually reducing the carbon that that oil might be producing out of the tail

pipe of a car as an example. that's where the consideration around value creation from carbon management really hits home. that's when you can go inn to see it not just as an environmental slugs but it's acetive to industry, investors and people looking at it around the world. they're looking at building coal fired power plants in the middle east, they can see a means of capturing that c02, enhancing their oil production and using their natural gas for chemicals and petrochemicals, et cetera. so there is a real business analysis behind this. it's not just a climate conversation. >> peter, what would a feasibility study show us? what do you think that would do? >> well, feasibility with respect to modern coal plants or advanced carbon separation

technologies would look at the ability to vary the energy consumption of the plant in order to provide grid services. so chuck mentioned the petro novemb nova complex in texas. because of the technical nature of this configuration it produces more power than the plant needs, which means it can provide spinning reserve to the -- to the grid and given the amount of wind in texas and the growing amount of wind in texas providing reserves, providing services to the electricity system will become more and more important. right now energy costs are the bulk of your bill, then you have generation and transmission, but as the intermittent resources come on to the grid more fully, the things that used to be

provided by coal and nuclear plants for free, you know, inertia jun grid, spinning reserve, now will have much more value. so the plants of the future, be they fossil or nuclear will have to be configured in a way to take advantage of that to augment the revenue streams to see whether that's feasible. the other inning i want to say about feasibility is we focus too much, i think, on the costs of electricity or to leveli dchd -- so in the case of c02 people say storage that's expensive. it's expensive because you have to separate out c02 which is a much larger fraction of the coal content than sulfur or nitrogen or anything else so that's a big load and what are you going to do with it?

let's do eor, enhanced oil recovery which depends on the price of oil. you have a big system of c02 transport but it can actually happen if the price of oil is at relatively stable level and with this credit that the congress put in that shifts the supply curve of c02 from capture sources down and makes it more economic. whether that's enough, that's what we're looking at. >> well, it's undeniable that the iea published and reported extensively several years ago that a world with two scenarios, a world with no ccus and a world with ccus and the world with ccus it costs 137% less to change the world and achieve carbon emissions and climate

targets by utilizing ccus than to simply try to do it all through renewables and storage. it's an economic analysis as much as anything else. and that's the other part of this conversation that people really need to embrace. what is expensive and i think, yes, carbon capture utilization and storage is expensive in the areas where you're looking at greenfield opportunities, et cetera, but part of the whole innovation through research, et cetera, is to drive that cost lower and lower by broad deployment, it's done sensibly across the country and i know the department of energy continues to work on that and will continue to work on that because it's so important to do that. it's not either/or, it's a system approach that says i need to integrate all of what i have available to me and if i do that sensibly that's when i'm actually optimizing the system,

not fighting about which is right or wrong. >> emily, we talked about the future and when you're making investments in policies for now with what the future may look like or we don't know. can you speak about what it could be. >> sure. i think that obviously what we are in a period now of great change and uncertainty in terms of future technology capability, et cetera, particularly storage which could have a radical impact on what the utilities of the future look like. so i think that there's generally in terms of focusing in on trying to minimize risk, there's at least some companies that are basically adopting the philosophy that we should not make a decision today that can't be reversed or they call it irreversible decision today until we know more and that's both in terms -- that's important both in terms of some of the regulations that are in flux today as well as technology changes coming up in the future. that's one issue.

a second issue going forward is -- and parallel -- is not to necessarily commit to a technology perhaps gas technology going forward as in a new plant because of a concern about reducing your carbon emissions when, in fact, you are not looking at the entire carbon emission burden associated with a grand new gas fire combined cycle plant. not only do you have upstream emissions but that new plant will be around for decades and the more you commit to certain cost investments, the less willing you are to be able to take advantage of future changes going forward. >> that's a very important point. it's too easy to say that, gee, we're investing in natural gas generation therefore we lowered our carbon footprint. we invested in natural gas generation because natural gas is cheap and it provides a lower cost electricity of any given

new plant. but that's a function of the fuel price and fuel prices go in cycles and sometimes gas will go up and coal will be cheaper. from the point of view of carbon management, if you replaced all your coal plants with natural gas plants which is happening in some places and you want to go to this dee carbon iced future you will have to do ccs on the gas plants and that's expensive as well. if you want to go wind and storage that's exceedingly expensive from a system point of view even if it's free electricity. but to follow up on something chuck said, you shouldn't think of ccs -- or ccus as just something -- >> thank you. >> -- for the coal industry, it's across the fossil fuel energy sector which is most of the energy sector. we get any percent of our energy, which is not just electricity but also fuels from fossil fuels. so you can capture c02 at

refineries, you can capture them at fuels plants, you can make liquids out of coal and gas and have your pure steam of c02 and use that for your eor or other utilization options such as concrete, cement, you can combine the c02 with the natural gas liquids that come out of the ground in pennsylvania or in texas and make polymers with that. those are research questions that we are trying to look at. so it's important to know that energy is 100 quad system, 100 quadrillion btus in the united states. it's not electricity only which is about 40% of that. >> chuck, you said -- i have two more questions for the group that you all can weigh in on. you said much of the work comes from take states. what does that mean and do you have an example of that? >> well, one of the things i like to remind me is we've got 50 states and every state has

its own desires and drives and needs. if you really look at it there are a very, very small amount of states that provide well over 80% of the energy for the rest of the country. i call those states the makers. i happen to be from a maker state. it's not just electricity, but it's the fuels, it's the plastics, it's everything that the rest of the country consumes. those are the takers. i'm not sure to point any fingers at states or anything, but just simple to raise everyone's consciousness that it's not just about those that take and what they think about what the makers are doing and how they should do it better. i think that's a big conversation that goes along with the consumption and people's demands and what they believe, et cetera, et cetera.

but i don't know that you're going to change that. i think people are people and they're always going to have their own self-interest at heart and so that's why i believe leading companies, the industries that are embracing this attitude that's out there, this need that's out there for a lower carbon future, carbon management isn't about keeping it in the frowned, carbon management is about managing emissions and utilizing it for best economic value and only then can the makers continue to make, provide the products that all the takers continue to use and use more of every day and to have that balance occur. and that's just not unique to the united states, that's unique around the world. there's makers and takers all over the world and the makers will bear the burden but the makers also have to have enough

sense and foresight to be able to put carbon management into that occasion and make it acretive. not a cost or burden but a competitive differentiation. >> anyone have anything to say? one last question for each of you and then we will make room for the secretary. what gets in the way of innovation or what could help spur innovation in the future? just a quick answer, each of you. >> obviously some of the taxes or cost incentives have really made -- made the playing field level. part of the issue s you know, if we had a level playing field where we are not forced to deal with at least in terms of coal plants dealing with mention like the production tax credit which severely distort the economics of coal, then we would perhaps be in a better situation where the coal plants weren't fighting for their survival on a daily

basis, but actually could spend the time to innovate and think about the future such as ccus. i said that right. and matters like that. so i would say leveling the playing field has been a big problem. >> peter? >> i would say from a doe perspective that the -- we have an interest in better facilitating the transfer technology from our national live system to industry and so doe is focusing more and more on having a more effective private/public partnership with the labs and what that means is we have research projects that we with i wish to bring in industry and jointly develop technology because the mission of doe is to bring up technologies in the carbon space and work with industry to get those into the market. >> excellent. >> energy industry bears an incredible burden of public

trust and it always will, especially the electricity industry, it's for the public good. so when you put in innovation, you're expecting it to work, be safe, be reliable, everything. and so this tension between is it commercially ready or are we demonstrating something new and really transformational? that's something that policy has to support and be able to introduce effectively because in this industry you don't get take backs. if you screw up, you pay for it forever. and in this situation, that gets in the way of innovation, but i will also add on to what emily said, i think it's important to understand market structure. we have this myth around the country that we have deregulated markets. trusty they are not deregulated. there is a lot of embedded regulation in those deregulated states with renewable portfolio

standards and advantageous situations, one supply versus another, and i think the whole idea of levalizing all of that conversation, looking at emissions and being able to have apples and apples comparisons, that's how you create a market structure that will promote innovation. not favoring one versus another. >> thank you all. such a pleasure. give you a round of applause. [ applause ] >> i'd like to introduce carl cannon to the stage, our executive editor. >> tony busby. i thought i lost you.

hello, everyone -- >> season was wanting to talk about texas back there. >> texas tech basketball. >> actually it was university of houston, but that's okay. >> his school is in it, too. i'm carl cannon for those who don't know me, i'm the executive editor of real clear politics. i think most of you do know that we're nonpartisan, bipartisan, whichever you prefer, nonpartisan is really what we are and you know my guest is probably why you're here so i'm not going to give a big introduction. rick perry is an air force veteran, rancher and former governor of texas. i met him several years when he ran for president the first time and today he's secretary of energy. thank you for being here. >> thank you. it's my honor to be here and to real clear politics for hosting this, it's a pleasure for me to get to come and hang out and talk about something i'm very passionate about. >> a week ago -- i think a week ago today you visited the vogel

electric generating plant in georgia, you reiterated federal loan guarantees for that -- for the two nuclear reactors being built there. i think they are the only two reactors being built in this country. >> that's correct. >> you said -- and you said when you came out of there, i love this, you're going to make nuclear cool again. can you really do that? >> i've said that a number of times. the coolest job i ever had in my life is the current one, no the best job i ever had, that was being the governor of texas. it's fascinating what's going on in the energy realm right now, but notwithstanding what's happening in the natural gas side of the world and the innovation and the technology, which interestingly the department of energy's national labs had a pivotal role to play in that gak through the years and i would suggest to you has a

pivotal role to play as we build a foundation. i think it's really important if there's one thing you remember i say while you're here today that you take away is that we have a foundation. it's kind of like building a house, when you think about you've got to have a good foundation, almost biblical i'm sure somewhere that you have to have a good foundation. if you have a good foundation then what you build on top of that, nuclear and coal are both those foundational energy sources in this country. hydro, which interestingly -- >> i'm going to get to hydro. let's stick with nuclear for a minute. >> all right. so the nuclear side of things is -- i think you have to have this uninterruptible supply so that you have a resiliency and a reliability in your ability to deliver energy. if you don't, then all those other sources are

uninterruptible in some form or fashion. we will get to that about wind, we will get to it about solar and we will get to it about natural gas which i am a huge supporter and proponent of natural gas. but i'm a big believer that you don't put all your eggs in one basket. as a matter of fact, you try to have an all of the above energy strategy, which is what president trump is interested in. he wants to see that type of diversity of both fuels, supplies and routes, and that's a message to the europeans as well. i know we jumped around and talked about a lot of different things. >> i have a couple other questions about nuclear energy. since it doesn't leave -- it doesn't contribute to global warming or leave a carbon footprint, why isn't it more popular with progressives, why isn't it more popular in the marketplace? why did nuclear power fall out of favor? >> back when nuclear power was coming on board the environmental community was for it. if you go back and study history

you will find that the sierra club i think voted eight to one on their board when the diablo plant was built in california. they were for it. i will let you go read all the interesting stories about why they made the shift, but it's pretty hard to argue if you care about the climate that we have, you care about the environment that this globe has around it that you're against nuclear power, zero emissions. that just doesn't jive for me. so i want to go back to driving through rural georgia this last week, going to that vogel plant. driving in and interestingly on the right, right before you turn in, is a massive solar field of solar panels, so they have -- they have that zero emission facility right there, solar grew

by 90% in the last two years. so we're seeing this really great growth in these renewables, which i'm quite supportive of. when i was the governor of texas we put more wind energy in than any other state in the nation. just as a little ad for texas here. they became -- they produce more percentagewise of their energy of renewables than europe does. 15% of the energy in texas is now renewables. so the point here is there's this great diversity and all of these are creating jobs, in the solar energy side, in the wind energy side. we passed the parking lot going into this vogel plant, i thought i was going to a university of georgia football game, i mean, there's cars and pickup trucks as far as you can see out there. >> the workers building the plant. >> 7,500, thereabouts, jobs and the average salary $148,000.

i mean, $148,000 you can do okay in washington, d.c. in georgia you're living good. now, i'm telling you -- and most of the places outside of washington, d.c. i would suggest to you $148,000 a year -- and that is an amazingly good salary. that's one of the benefits of what we're talking about here with nuclear energy. zero emissions, job creation, diversity of -- i mean, what's wrong with that? >> you were also in the news this week, the department of energy is facilitating some licensing agreements that may lead to nuclear power plants being constructed in saudi arabia. the concern there is a national security concern that this technology will fall into the wrong hands or lead to an arms race in the middle east.

how do you respond to that? >> it's the same with any country is what i tell people. we follow the law, there's two numbers -- sometimes people get confused, even members of congress from time to time get confused about the difference between a section 810 exemption and a 123 agreement. 123 agreement is basically what you would be required to agree to additional protocols and what have you and say you can do this, you can do this, you can do this. from the standpoint of nonproliferation the 123 agreement is incredibly important. we're not going to go into a civil nuclear program with someone that doesn't sign a 123 agreement. we did one with the uae, we've done it with a substantial number of countries. saudi arabia and the united states are in discussions about

that 123 at this particular point in time. the section 810 is a different concept -- not a different concept, it's just a different part of the law, and it basically says that before u.s. technology can go into any of these countries, whether it's south korea or whether it's the uae or whether it's saudi arabia or vietnam, wherever, that you must have the department of energy sign an 810 before that technology can go in there. if it's technology that could be used for the processing, you notify congress, obviously those are not what these 810s are -- i think we signed -- and the reason these are not public in the sense of, you know, here, we will just put them into the federal register, is because the proprietary information of these companies don't want their

information out. it would be like any business, they want to protect their proprietary information and we want that for them as well. we want them to be able to trust the united states government that we're not going to give your business plan or your business proprietary information to the public. so i think there's a little bit of education that needs to go on here. the department of energy is following the law. you betcha, do i want the countries around the world that are going to build a civil nuclear program to be using american companies? absolutely. for two reasons, number one, westinghouse makes the best reactors in the world. they just do. that's a fact. and i want whoever it is, whether it's jordan, whether it's saudi arabia, use those american companies because we need it for our -- we need it for our future buildout.

when we go into advanced reactors, when we go into small monitor reactors, we're going to need that supply chain and we're going to need that intellectual capital that comes with keeping a strong civil nuclear program into place. so, you know, it's the same with our carbon capture utilization technologies. i mean, almost three quarters of the -- of the energy that's produced by 2040 is going to be fossil fuels. that's a fact. you may not like it or you ma i not want it to be that way, but that's the fact. so america's role in that is making sure that our technology is what's being used out there as much as we can, which captures that c02 and those emissions and sequesters it or utilizes it for tertiary recovery of oil somewhere, it's what we did outside of houston.

i know we're jumping around a lot here. there's a lot to cover. >> let me ask you one more national security question and we will go into carbon and renewables. we heard the panel before this and we did real clear politics did two or three events last year about cybersecurity and it keeps coming up, everybody talks about it, says the electrical grid if that's attacked we have a problem. what are you doing at the department of energy to protect the electric grid from cyber attacks? >> we live in a very dangerous world. we live in a world where the electrons are now being used -- well, historically but in new ways electrons are being used as weapons. so cyber attacks and the use of cyber to -- whether it's

penetrate into scata systems, whether it's to otherwise affect the ability for our electrical grid to operate reliably. we stood up a new office of cybersecurity and emergency response at the department. there is an individual, incredibly bright lady, who is the head of that department, if you will, in our agency today. their job is to work with the intel side, with our national labs. we have -- we have three national labs that are dedicated to this challenge. we actually have a test grid at the idaho national lab whose job solely is to go out and to break the grid, if you will, to see what you can do to it, to put viruses on it, to really test

what we see are the vulnerabilities in our -- in our grid out there. here is my concern, if i can take just a second, the scenario that bothers me -- there is not a lot that keeps me up at night, but this scenario is one that causes me some consternation. we have had a couple of major weather events, the polar vortex i think in 2014, we had another -- fortunately it only lasted a few days in the midwest this last winter, but what i worry about is one of those really bad weather events, particularly a polar vortex, that comes in and settles in over the northeastern part of this country for a week plus, and an adversary of the united

states has placed a virus upon some control systems and electrical generation in the northeast and there is a physical attack on a gas pipeline, all coordinated with the exception of the weather obviously, but waiting for that weather event to occur. at that particular point in time if you lose electricity, if you lose power to the northeastern part of the united states for multiple days, the chaos that would occur in new york city with our air traffic control system, that i worry about. so all of this fits together. a diversity of fuels, a diversity of routes, a diversity of supplies, all of that makes a lot of sense to me for us to be thinking about that, and i think the role of a leader is to look

at all of those, you know, way out in left field things that could happen and be prepared for that. so that's the -- that's the key from my perspective. one of the reasons it was important for us to continue to have a civil nuclear program, one of the reasons for us to have those other foundational fuels, coal, hydro, they are uninterruptible and i think to have that uninterruptible fuel supply as your foundation is very prudent for this country. >> mr. secretary, your mantra in this job has been to ensure, quote, reliable energy, affordable sustainable prices, something few people would -- reasonable people would disagree with, but your critics have said -- some of them are outside today -- that this is sort of language barack obama used this

kind of language but then in your case in the current administration's case it's kind of a cover for reemphasizing coal and fracking and technologies that they think are yesterday's technologies and not paying enough -- not putting the emphasis on what you yourself has said is the future. who you do you respond to that? >> well, all of the above i think is a good strategy. putting all your eggs in one basket -- this administration got criticized for leaving the paris accord. i'm going to tell you an interesting story. one of my first outings as the secretary was in april of 2017 and i went to a g7 meeting in rome and so there were the u.s. and the six other big -- the other gs of that group were together and they kind of lectured us, you can't get out of the paris accord.

and then in the bilats when we went into some rooms and closed the doors and it was just me talking with the french, me talking with the germans, they were like how do we buy your liquefied natural gas? and that's a good thing. when you think about what's going on in germany today, germ me stood up and said we're going to be carbon free by this date, we're getting rid of internal combustion engines. guess whose emissions are going up today, folks. nobody is leading like america is leading on reducing emissions. from 2005 to 2017 this country has reduced emissions by 14%. america is leading because of the innovation. the reason that liquefied natural gas is desired in europe

is not only because it will help lower the emissions, but it will also free them from the dependence upon russian gas. and i will suggest to you that the europeans are pretty wise about having alternative sources of energy rather than the russians. i would simply say if you don't believe that, go ask the ukrainians. we've got a great story to tell. when you see a state like texas that has a reputation of being, you know, a fossil fuel giant, which we are and quite proud of that, frankly, but 15% of that state's power is generated by renewables. that's a great story and it's a story we ought to be standing up and hopefully the folks that are outside here that may not agree with everything that this administration does, would respect what america is doing from the standpoint of lowering

emissions. there's one country that's leading the charge. one country that's making a real difference when it comes to the climate and that's america. i'm proud of that. i'm proud to be a part of t both at the doe level, who help develop some of the technologies that make hydraulic fracturing a reality today and american l & g is now being sold in 34 different countries on five continents. we're making a difference. if more l & g, and to come from qatar, australia, but if more l & g gets in the marketplace and we remove old inefficient type power generation this world will have a cleaner environment. if you want to protest somebody's energy strategy, i will suggest you might do it in china, and you might do it in

india. but i would be real careful about going out and protesting over there. >> let's talk about renewables. so this energy mix, texas is almost a microcosm of the country. so right now nuclear -- and i'm talking about not gas and cars, but the grid -- nuclear is about 20%, coal and natural gas around 30%, natural gas is a little higher, coal a little lower. >> renewable is about 10. >> 17 now. >> 17? >> 17. it's been going up since you've been there. i've got wind, solar, hydro about 17% >> oh, okay. >> i added hydro. >> hydro. >> i don't want to get into -- hydro is a form of renewable energy, i just -- sometimes i get concerned about, you know, it would be very, very rare for it to be interruptible. >> and it's not going to grow

much. >> right. >> so let's talk about -- >> good point. >> let's talk about solar. renewables has grown according to the department of energy, it's doubled in the last ten years. >> grew 90% in the last two years, solar. >> do you see it doubling in the next ten years? >> i think it can. i went out to -- and i'm for that. i mean, i was in arizona 30 days ago at a dell web facility with rooftop solar on it and battery storage. the department of energy is very, very involved, very interested investing substantial dollars in battery storage technologies. we happen to think that battery storage is kind of the holy grail. we figure that one out, then we really change the whole future of energy use in the world.

i hope no one gets confused that this administration is not for all of those forms of energy. we are. we're going to need it all. when you think about the potential growth in africa, when you look at india and china, the demand for energy is literally through the roof. we want it to be american innovation, we want it to be clean energy and we can do that, but we can't throttle this country because we truly are leading the world and it's our innovation and in a lot of cases it's our fuel supply that will help lead that -- lead that economic improvement in a lot of places around the world. >> let's talk about coal for a minute. on the previous panel governor

bevin made a persuasive case why coal is an essential part of the mix, you've said similar things. i remember in 2016 president -- then candidate donald trump said something i had never heard before, big beautiful coal. we know the big beautiful wall, but big beautiful coal. i thought joe manchin wouldn't even say that, but okay. >> yeah, he would. >> yeah, he would. okay. >> you better believe it. >> when we talk about coal there's a couple issues, one we hear phrases like emissions reductions and clean capture, but what's going on technologically that will make coal more palatable in the future or is it just a bridge technology that will gradually be phased out? >> i will be real honest with you, looking ten years into the future and saying here is what it's going to look like is a fool's errand. many of you will remember back in about 2005 that there was a couple of folks traveling around making a pretty good living

giving a speech called peak oil, do you remember, we had found it all, and if you find any new sources it's going to be exorbitantly expensive to produce. i mean, how wrong was that? so the idea that says coal is done, you just -- you know, it's done, i will make two arguments here. one is that is someone who doesn't believe in american innovation and american -- the genius of america. carbon capture utilization, those technologies, the highly efficient low emission plants that pulverize coal basically and are -- i mean, i walked through one in morgan town, west virginia, and you could literally wipe your hand on the floor and probably cleaner than my condo.

and the emissions side of it. so we're seeing and the industry is working on technologies that will allow for the use of that fossil fuel to be used and substantially reduce and in some cases petro nova is a plant just outside houston. one of the first things i did as the secretary was to go over there and help open that plant and i think 95% of the carbon is taken out of those emissions, put into a pipe, sent over to a pipe -- or through a pipeline to an oil field where it's used in secondary recovery of crude. there are places around the world that that technology will work and, you know, it's obviously reliant upon the price of a barrel of oil, but i think

that's probably going to stay at a level that makes it economically feasible. so there's -- and there may be technologies out there that they're working on that no one -- no one even knows about yet from the standpoint of -- don't throttle america's ingenuity. don't tell americans that you can't do this or -- i'm a big believer that if we will have faith in american scientists, if we will have, you know, put kids into stem programs and excite them about science and technology and engineers and math that our future is still incredibly bright. sources of energies that we may -- we may not even recognize today, 15, 20 years down the road are going to be -- give you

a great example. fusion. there is a couple companies out on the west coast that are working on fusion energy today, tae and general atom mix. iter is a project that the international community is working on in the southern part of france with a tocomac reactor there. i am very bullish on the energy industry and a lot of different ways and i think we owe it to future generations, both from an economic standpoint, from a global environment standpoint, from a humanitarian standpoint to continue to have this all of the above strategy for energy. i had the opportunity to go to

africa and there are literally hundreds of millions of people that don't have access to a single light bulb. american technology, american humanitarianism is needed. >> well, i think -- i was going to ask you that other question but that's a good place to end, sir. thank you. in closing let me just say that i moved here when you were an aggie, when i was in high school, from california -- >> you like to bring that point up, he is a lot younger than i am. but it's true. it has the added benefit of being true. >> it was the '70s and being from california was cool and i joined the environmental action club in my high school. we went on a march.

>> it's a good this i think. >> we marched to block the construction of i-66 that tom bevin, he and i drove on it last night. i use it every day now. when i first met you you were running for president, the department of energy was one of the federal agencies you thought was maybe extraneous. >> is that the one i forgot? >> it is, sir. >> okay. >> see, theres some karma there if you think about it and the reason i forgot it was probably -- any way -- >> look, i don't bring this up -- >> yeah, you did. you totally brought it up, dude. >> to say that our youthful indiscretion, you were a young governor, young-looking governor any way. >> that's hilarious. >> i still believe -- i still believe in environmentalism. we have to coexist on the planet with 7 billion people. >> well said. >> public policy solutions involve negotiations and political compromise as well as technological advancement and innovative thinking. so thank you for coming here to share -- >> and i think one of the keys

is talk to each other. you know, if there's one piece of advice i would try to -- is to talk to each other, hopefully in a civil way, and -- or that's, i think, the preferable way. if i get silent it's not because i quit, it's just because i'm probably not going to argue with someone who doesn't want to understand what i'm trying to say. >> anyway, i hope you will join me in thanking the secretary. >> thank you, carl. it was good. [ applause ] >> and we're done.

later today on c-span 3 a look at navy operations and ship building programs. that's live at 12:15 p.m. eastern from the center for the national interest. this weekend on american history tv, world war ii navajo code talkers and a look back at the 1979 three mile island nuclear power accident. saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral histories, the first of six interviews with former world war ii navajo code talkers who served in the marine corps and used their native language to secretly communicate operational plans. >> it took us the navajo code talkers, compelled to use their language and they devised it and

they schemed it in such a way that it played a role of a very unique role of confusing the enemy. >> the enemy. >> and sunday morning live at 8:30 eastern on american history tv and c-span washington jourm, the 40th anniversary of the three mile island nuclear pour plant accident near harrisburg, pennsylvania considered the most sowers accident in the united states. joining us to look at the event samuel walker and act being director of the nuclear safety project for the union of concerned scientists edward lieman. and at 4:00 p.m. on real america watch the 1979 report from three mile island. >> evacuation. please stay indoors with windows closed. >> for almost a week last month the people of middletown,