Badmovies.org Forum

The Fukushima disaster soured much of the West on nuclear power,  but that's changing in light of recent events.  Now Japan itself is leading a resurgence in nuclear power development with new generation systems designed not only to produce power safely and effectively but to fufill multiple tasks at once,  like creating green hydrogen produced without creating greenhouse gasses but to produce useful heat for other purposes.

Here are two videos moderately intelligent abd educated people can follow, you don't need to be a tech head or a physicist to follow them.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Ff0Fg4mTI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_uTZWaJU6ho

Personally I favor a return to nuclear power,  past disasters were usually caused by correctable issues mainly based on relying on the industry to regulate itself, a proven fallacy.

 I'm curious as to how folks here, many of whom seem to be informed even if of very different opinions, feel on the issue. I believe nuclear power can be safeky developed abd used if mananged properly and strictly.  The US navy and France prove this to be the case.

Abd let's face if,  if JAPAN is willibg to bet on nuclear power again, I think they must know something. I can't see them going back to it unless they were double DAMN sure it was the way to go.

I hope some people will watch the videos I linked, they are concise yet comprehensive and comprehendable abd presented in a way that makes them normal person friendly.

I'm in favor of nuclear.

Yes, nuclear...
It's worked well for a pretty long time, & has gotten a bum rap...
Before Fukushima, the Japanese had a brief history of irresponsible use that even the North Koreans didn't have, but I believe was more of a learning experience for the entire world Than anything else.

And what good are learning experiences if they are not used to advance a good cause?

And again the US Navy has run a safe effective nuclear program for a lifetime now, if we regulated a nuclear industry with the same dedication and fervor they navy does I think it'd be pretty damn safe.

I am opposed to nuclear power. I wouldn't trust our public or private sector with that much responsibility. Also way too many unknown unknowns

I've only ever seen one other person comment on the US navy's use of nuclear power. He used to be on this board too.

Nuclear power is as safe as the people using it, and the area it is located. I have nothing against it being used, although I'd rather see it as a stop-gap measure while you transition to types of energy that doesn't have the waste issue. I wouldn't go campaigning against it though.

OK, here's my thought. I believe everybody has to agree compared to 1950-1975 the last twenty-five years have seen few interesting super heroes and super villains arise, and clearly it's because we aren't seeing the level of r-mutations we did when the use of nuclear power was more common. For the sake of entertainment we must bring radiation leakage back or else we're going to lose an entire genre to stagnation. That's all I have to add to this topic.

That's not even getting into today's lack of horrible mutant monstrosities and giant animals rampaging across the country side.

I know, right?!

That's what "Clean Coal" was supposed to be...
I keep hearing that the output is better than nuclear, with manageable emissions (why else would it be called "Clean" coal?), but the waste is far worse, & since it doesn't hafta be buried ten miles underground, the highly toxic coal ash can be dumped almost anywhere.

'Clean coal' was a Madison avenue term, there's no such thing as clean coal. 

Another recent boost for nuclear came much more recently. I mean, one little invasion of Ukraine and oil prices explode all over earth.

Plus that whole 'human influenced global warming' thing is pretty much established fact now no matter what fox and infowars says.

Yeah yeah I wanted to wait for fusion too but we're still decades away from it if we ever get to it. Fission is here, it's a mature tech and all it takes is the will to make it safe.  Plus modern nuclear plants have the side bonus of producing truly clean hydrogen that can be used as a fuel source in itself.

I'm gonna go with Morpheus on this one.
More nuclear power is the best way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.

Saw this today, and thought it might interest some people.

World oil production per capita peaked back in 1979, and what affected oil is also affecting non-conventional production, uranium, copper, and even rare metals needed for nuclear reactors.

Meanwhile, the world population continues to grow even with lower birth rates due to momentum, while the energy and resource demand per capita is rising because of a growing global middle class:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470)

Some argue that we will need more energy and resources than what the planet can provide. One documentary estimates that we will need the equivalent of one more earth just to meet the basic needs of that population, and up to three more earths to provide for middle class conveniences, which everyone wants.

Given that, going back to nuclear is a non-issue. The concern is whether or not we will have enough energy and resources to meet demand.

Honey, the word is Malthusian.

Indeed; we really have no choice.

Overpopulation is only part of the problem The others are overconsumption per capita, limits to growth, ecological damage, and "black swans."

The first is mitigated by decreasing birth rates but offset by population momentum. The second is driven by combinations of planned obsolescence and competition in private capitalism, both driven by maximization of profit. The third is caused by diminishing returns plus the fourth point. The fourth point is the outcome of the second. The fifth is driven by all factors amplifying each other.

Socialism was never intended to be an antidote to human reproduction/ expansion/ etc under capitalism. it was supposed to be BETTER for families and thus lead to way more of them.

Malthusian misanthropy is the "black swan".

Also competency.
Must keep in mind, it was a communist country cutting corners that lead to the world's largest nuclear disaster.

the environmental record of communist and socialist countries is awful in general

Sadly very true.

Some argue that environmental problems brought about by manufacturing were outsourced to other countries where environmental protection is decreased in order to lower costs.

That's why industrialized countries became less pollution-free as they shifted to service industries while manufactured goods and in some cases even food are shipped to them. That might also explain why there are environmental problems not only in socialist and communist countries but in non-socialist and non-communist ones, including several in Asia and Africa, where cheap labor is available and where even trash from industrialized countries is dumped.

I'm for nuclear power.

Well to some people in America, countries like France and Germany are 'socialist'.

China has nothing to do with socialism. China is the kind of system socialism was meant to oppose.  Russia is a failed kratocracy.

Honestly western Europe and scandanavia are the closest things to what I consider actual socialism on earth today.

Morpheus - one of the first bumper stickers I ever saw was "save the whales". Russia were slaughtering thousands of humpback whales for no discernable reason other than it was a policy. There was no consideration of environmental issues not just there but all throughout the Soveit sphere of influence. even today Venezuelas oil drilling areas are disgusting

Going back to the 90s, I recall something about a Russian oil pipeline that had quite a severe leak. It was decided that shutting down the pipeline to repair it would be too expensive, so nothing was done about it and the result was a sizable lake of oil that ruined the land around it. There was a fair amount of that kind of thing going on. It was viewed that a hectare of land left unplowed was land wasted. This led directly to a lot of environmental damage. In China, Mao's agricultural policies led to millions starving in famine. The same has happened in other communist countries where they go for collectivisation (although I totally agree with Lester about these countries not really being socialist or even communist. I view them more as variations on dictatorships).

I never said Russia wasn't a bad country for the environment, I just said it was never an actual socialist country. It was never communist or socialist,  from Stalin onward it was a kratocracy, pure and simple.

There was a brief period of hope with Gorbachev but Putin ground that out.

China is trying to green up a bit,  I don't think Russia can. Russia is a very failed state on every level that unfortunately has the ability to say ''hell with it! '' and pull the world down with it it it decides to go out with a bang.

About socialism, if it refers to public ownership and regulation, then most economies worldwide are actually socialist, and following up to half of the 10 planks given by Marx in the Manifesto.

And their results can be weird. For example, I think the average economic growth for Nordic countries has decreased as they entered late capitalism. So did countries like Japan and South Korea. Meanwhile,

Cuba, which is one of the only Communist countries in the world, experienced around 10 pct, as its economy quadrupled in size in only twenty years. North Korea, meanwhile, experienced only around 2 pct on ave., similar to that of the U.S. The Philippines, which copies the U.S., has less than 2 pct.

Vietnam, which is market socialist (free market but cooperatives and public corporations) has 5-6 pct, almost twice that of the Philippines and of the U.S. Its current growth rate almost reached 14 pct.

China, which is similar to that of the U.S. except that the government is ruled by a Communist Party that's an active partner in businesses, has a growth rate of around 6-7 pct.

The Asian "tigers" are doing similar to Vietnam, but they have mostly authoritarian regimes.

"late capitalism" as an expression that was invented in 1975. Since then, way more countries are capitalist than socialist. so really it was late socialism. the holdouts for this style of govt are Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba who's major contribution to the world have been immigrants looking for a better situation

One important thing to remember is that if you are starting from a very low base, then it is very easy to show a high percentile increase.

True, dat.

This is why china has such improvement in living standards since the 80's.

Late capitalism refers to the situation where income levels are so high a country now outsources and focuses on service industries, high-tech manufacturing, etc. It was first used during the early part of the twentieth century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism

Results include increasing debt, outsourcing, high consumption per capita, and even population aging.

Also, diminishing returns take place as economic growth peaks.

Meanwhile, economic growth is much faster, with countries sustaining something like a 6-pct growth rate across several decades. I think for countries like the U.S. the golden years only lasted from '45 to the late '60s, after which issues with real wages started to set in.

It is now currently experiencing population aging, and I think 60 pct of its manufacturing is assembly as it has started outsourcing in turn, and relying on cheap labor from other countries. Similar happened to countries like the U.S. and Japan.

I saw a post on Facebook yesterday about how Glen Youngkin wants to test Small Modular Reactors in some abandoned coal mines in Southwest Virginia....

It was a hit piece that went into a tangent about how we need to go back to hydroelectric....
Trouble with hydroelectric is, somebody's still gonna raise a stink....
I had to point out how California emptied out all their reservoirs & hydroelectric dams to save a bunch of fish that aren't even endangered....

ralfy - I stand corrected: that the expression "late capitalism" in fact existed around 1900 makes my point even stronger

"
Late capitalism refers to the situation where income levels are so high a country now outsources and focuses on service industries, high-tech manufacturing, etc. It was first used during the early part of the twentieth century:"

it doesn't say that in the link you provided at all. "outsourcing" is one particular policy in the midst of a capitalist system. and it didn't exist in the early 20th century

The idea that I'm using comes from Jameson, but he refers to the effects rather than the causes of late capitalism. Here's what I think happened:

People started moving from farms to factories to avail of higher pay. Industrialists set up assembly line methods and other means to take advantage of economies of scale, then set up means with banks to provide things like layaway plans for workers to buy the goods that they manufactured. Meanwhile, agriculture was mechanized.

This accelerated from 1945 to the late 1960s, the so-called "golden age" of the U.S. economy, as workers earned high in manufacturing while receiving credit to buy houses, furniture, appliances, cars, etc.

That ended starting in the early 1970s as what happened to the U.S. started taking place in European countries and in Japan, with the latter eventually taking over manufacturing. U.S. real wages eventually reached a peak, but with more productivity the gains went to a few that owned these companies.

After the late 1970s, U.S. manufacturers started outsourcing, and more workers now had to move from manufacturing to service industries. That's why more had to go to college or learn other skills which employers wanted. But since service industries can't be "exported" then the trade deficits which had started during the early 1970s became chronic. To compensate for that debt and spending started to rise considerably, to the point that it is now impossible for the U.S. to even pay for part of interests on previous debts.

What happened to the U.S. eventually happened to various European countries and Japan. And the countries which received outsourcing from Japan are beginning to experience similar. Even in China more workers want to move away from manufacturing to service industries (where pay is higher but more skills needed), while something like 60 pct of its manufacturing now consists of assembly, as it outsourced them to other countries with cheap labor.

That's late capitalism: high incomes artificially driven by high levels of debt and spending, and the latter driven by what Veblen would refer to as "pecuniary emulation", ultimately contributing to decadence, wokeness, etc.

That's why the same liberal attitudes are growing even in places like Japan and South Korea, where more young people move from job to job, want nice office work that pays the most for the least amount of work, and are part of a consumer spending society.

again thats not what the definition you cited says.

and its not true. Japan has tons of subsidized manufacturing and agriculture. The US has less of the former and more of the latter.  Also, the "outsourcing" doesn't mean the money evaporates, China built its current status via being part of capitalism in this manner, which has allowed for a much higher quality of life than they had under Mao.

capitalist countries like Canada, Singapore and Finland have lots of plumbers, mechanics, nurses and people that make and sell things theres no late stage involved.

more specifically re the 70's though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock is a big part of why things started to go awry. just more printing of money

It's given in the wiki entry. You need to read it very carefully. Add to that Aglietta.

Japan has been experiencing lost decades since 1991.

The bulk of U.S. business is not manufacturing but services. The former started decreasing during the 1970s. In addition to that, economic growth has been slow since the early 1960s, trade deficits chronic since the early 1970s, and overall debt and spending rising since the early 1980s. Debt is, I'm told, impossible to pay, as what's borrowed annually can't even pay for part of interest of previous debt.

Canada, Singapore, and Finland have been facing the effects of increasing debt, personal spending, and demographic problems due to low birth rates and population aging. In addition, Canada has housing bubble problems like the states, Singapore crony capitalism, and Finland deterioration of its once-formidable tech industries (like Nokia).

Similar is taking place with China, where 60 pct of manufacturing consists of assembly as it outsources in turn to countries like Thailand, currently considered the "Detroit of Asia". It's also facing low birth rates plus pollution problems.

The Nixon shock is one of the results of late capitalism coupled with the Triffin dilemma. That is, after WW2 the U.S. dominated with manufacturing, oil, and even gold reserves, which is why Bretton Woods took place. That allowed it to export heavily while being able to import cheap, but because of the dilemma, that "golden age" lasted only until the late 1960s. After that, real wages peaked, the cost of living increased, oil production peaked, more countries started to trade their dollars for gold, etc. The result was the Nixon shock: drop the gold standard and argue that the dollar is good enough to back itself. That was not enough, so Nixon had to make a deal with the Saudis as well to have oil priced in dollars.

Last point: these are connected to the topic thread (I want to remain on-topic) because they show that capitalist systems require not only continuous economic growth but even increase rate of increase in growth. That's why not only will the world go back to nuclear but will use every energy source available to avert collapse.

Could we keep this on topic? Returning to large scale nuclear energy for the west?

Anybody have an opinion/insight on these Small Modular Reactors I mentioned earlier?

The west need more from global trade, so a lot of energy will be needed by the global economy itself. Given that, I don't think even large-scale nuclear energy will cut it. From what I remember, given current uranium supplies, we only have something like a decade's worth of energy that can be obtained from that. Include uranium taken from the oceans, then we might add another decade.

But this doesn't make up for rare metals also needed for reactors, and we need them for many other goods, especially consumer goods that markets want.

Finally, this only covers current energy usage. That's set to increase given growing population plus energy demand per capital:

https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/howmuchenergy/ (https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/howmuchenergy/)

ending of the gold standard aka nixon shock was because America was printing money to pay for the unpopular Vietnam War not because of late stage capitalism. finland and singapore aren't facing lower populations due to lower birth rates.

Singapore

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=singapore+population (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=singapore+population)


finland

https://www.google.com/search?q=finland+population&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALiCzsYA3Z1dcnX9fJIgI7wkOCTwfwurxg%3A1669269868618&ei=bAl_Y56vJbik5NoPhbu5qAs&oq=finaland&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQARgAMg0IABCxAxCRAhBGEPsBMggILhCxAxCRAjIFCAAQkQIyBQgAEJECMgUIABCRAjIKCAAQgAQQsQMQCjIKCAAQgAQQsQMQCjIHCAAQgAQQCjIHCAAQgAQQCjIKCAAQgAQQsQMQCjoKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoHCAAQsAMQQzoECCMQJzoECC4QJzoECAAQQzoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6BQgAEIAEOgsILhCDARDUAhCxAzoICAAQsQMQgwE6BwguENQCEEM6BwguELEDEEM6CggAELEDEIMBEEM6CAgAEIAEELEDOhEILhCABBCxAxCDARDHARDRAzoECC4QQzoICC4QgAQQsQM6CgguELEDEIMBEEM6CAguEIAEENQCOgQIABADOgoILhCABBCxAxAKSgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUIIGWNUMYPMZaAFwAXgAgAF0iAGHBpIBAzUuM5gBAKABAcgBCsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp (https://www.google.com/search?q=finland+population&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALiCzsYA3Z1dcnX9fJIgI7wkOCTwfwurxg%3A1669269868618&ei=bAl_Y56vJbik5NoPhbu5qAs&oq=finaland&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQARgAMg0IABCxAxCRAhBGEPsBMggILhCxAxCRAjIFCAAQkQIyBQgAEJECMgUIABCRAjIKCAAQgAQQsQMQCjIKCAAQgAQQsQMQCjIHCAAQgAQQCjIHCAAQgAQQCjIKCAAQgAQQsQMQCjoKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoHCAAQsAMQQzoECCMQJzoECC4QJzoECAAQQzoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6BQgAEIAEOgsILhCDARDUAhCxAzoICAAQsQMQgwE6BwguENQCEEM6BwguELEDEEM6CggAELEDEIMBEEM6CAgAEIAEELEDOhEILhCABBCxAxCDARDHARDRAzoECC4QQzoICC4QgAQQsQM6CgguELEDEIMBEEM6CAguEIAEENQCOgQIABADOgoILhCABBCxAxAKSgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUIIGWNUMYPMZaAFwAXgAgAF0iAGHBpIBAzUuM5gBAKABAcgBCsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)




cite it then



and to reiterate protectionism is NOT socialist or liberal in any sense. Pat Buchanan of the farthest right in the US is a proponent of it as is Robert reich, of the Clinton-ite left. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/ (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/)

Right, and at the same time the Triffin dilemma was at play, which is why U.S. economic growth started to slow down a decade before that, and trade deficits became chronic a few years after. That's all part of late capitalism, too.

What you're looking for is birth rate, not population.

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism)


In short, the move from manufacturing to service industries, esp. financing, rising debt and spending, which is part of financial speculating, high-tech advances leading to post-Fordism (as much of manufacturing is outsourced and smaller firms are formed to focus on specialized components), and inequality (due to real wages peaking, and then surplus profits going to the few who are owners of businesses, which with financial capital leads to an economy mostly owned by a few).

Protectionism is socialist because it's regulatory and the opposite of free markets.

I was reminded earlier this evening, that part of the problem is an outdated power grid....

It's an issue that power companies have have been trying to avoid since the '90s, & only started paying lip service a few years ago.....
In part, because it took us a hundred years to get into this mess, & it'll take us a hundred years to get out of it, but also because fewer states have their own power plants these days, meaning a larger amount of electricity needs to be transferred over a larger area....

thats not what the statement says but even if it did, there are dozens of capitalist economies that don't practice those things. The United States had 0 debt circa 2000 and many capitalist countries today are lender not debtor.


 it's not "regulatory" just free in a much smaller area but its still the market system. and again Marx supported free trade, not protectionism. Hitler however...



the gold standard ended because the US need to pay for the unpopular Vietnam war via inflation because no one was going to buy vietnam war bonds. the only "dilemma" was the US adminstration embracing imperialism rather than peace

 :twirl:

the point is its still competition. If only American wines were sold in liquor stories you would still have to choose between different vineyards or whatever. A black market would probably form for people who prefer French or italian wines so really theres no difference at all



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism "In most cases, fascists discouraged or banned foreign trade, supporting protectionism"

Someone here complained that 'liberal' workers want the most pay for the least work. Well, employers want the most work for the least pay.

'Free trade' was brought up, which means American workers are forced to 'compete' with third world workers making a few dollars a day, unpaid Chinese prison (slave)  labor abd countries that use child labor.
 

I totally married one of those. Most lay for the least work. Man, that is so him....

Hey! I’m alright my computer took a s**t that’s why I haven’t been online yeah. I’m getting one next month when I get paid. Happy thanksgiving.

People here will be glad to know this.

That's not what it says but even if it did....make up your mind. Also, there are capitalist countries "that don't practice those things" because they haven't reached that stage yet.

The U.S. has zero debt. You must be talking about a parallel universe.


That's what happens when you regulate.


Yes, it argued that from then on the dollar would be backed by...itself. Add to that petrodollar recycling.

And yet the Triffin dilemma persisted for obvious reasons.

Not just fascism. Also, mecantilism and even the East Asian Miracle.

I think it started when Japan took over. Meanwhile, the U.S. started outsourcing to Mexico. And then the "tiger" economies took over for Japan. China and even Vietnam came much later.

Today, I hear that the new kid on the block is Thailand.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/10/news/world/thailand-auto-industry/index.html

When Japan took over what?

And you didn't say anything about how American workers are supposed to 'compete' with third world workers, slave labor, child labor, etc. All you have is  ''regulation BAD! protectionism BAD! ''.

I did. I pointed out that you misinterpeted the statement, but charitably pretended that your argument was correct.

"late" stage capitalism makes no sense. there is no acknowledged time limit to capitalism. having a well run country with a sensible budget isn't late or early



I was talking about 22 years ago and it was innaccurate anyway. we were HEADED for a surplus. ALL countries have debt

Chinas debt is almost as bad as Japans  http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/CHINA-DEBT-HOUSEHOLD/010030H712Q/index.html (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/CHINA-DEBT-HOUSEHOLD/010030H712Q/index.html)

"China’s debt is more than 250 percent of GDP, higher than the United States. It remains lower than Japan, the world’s most indebted leading economy, but some experts say the concern is that China’s debt has surged at the sort of pace that usually leads to a financial bust and economic slump."

is that late stage communism? or just bad decisions by this particular state

Manufacturing. I must say, they do make such bloody good cameras!

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDAdJ4plSyc#)

Where did you get the idea that I think regulation and protectionism are bad? LOL.

I didn't misinterpret the statement. Not even close.



Of course, it does. That's why you have diminishing returns.



How does that even make sense, comparing what happened 22 years ago with the present?

Headed for a surplus? How?



That's not late stage Communism but late stage capitalism: increased financial speculation, just like the statement I mentioned earlier. In this case, credit pumped into paper real estate. Same thing happened to Japan during the late 1990s, and then the U.S. by 2008.

China is a Communist country? LOL.

:cheers: :cheers:

I'm sorry, what were we talking about? :question:

 :question:

China does have the second most billionaires of any country, not a feature normally associated with Communism. But, we're off topic.

Hydrogen? I've got a facebook friend who's always plugging that.....

How about an industrial turbine connected to a giant role of toilet paper that's being unraveled by an infinite number of cats?

How about an industrial turbine connected to a mile long stationary tandem bicycle, thus providing employment & solving obesity at the same time?

rev - it sort of is though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura

I think China today is a hybrid form of authoritarian semi-capitalism that doesn't really meet the classic definition of "Communism." I don't know what to call it.

So... Nuclear power?

world governments looked at Sars and ebola and got to work making sure it never happened again. In the process of doing so they created and released a disease a thousand times worse than those. We are currently at risk of a nuclear war breaking out over what appears to be a pretty easy to solve issue that  was held at bay by past groups of leaders.  point is: I don't trust these people with nuclear power. I can already see people flippantly saying "oh well Arizona is radioactive for a million years so we can't go there"

Here in Virginia, we have two perfectly good nuclear power plants that half the coast relies on....

It's the grid that bothers me, such as the blackouts caused by hurricanes Isabel & Irene, or the blackout of 2003, when one line overheated & knocked out power to several states....

The ruling political party in China is Communist but its economy is a capitalist mixed economy, consisting of private and public corporations. It has around a thousand billionaires, with many women, but they've been experiencing significant losses due to the current global economic crisis.

https://www.axios.com/2022/03/20/china-new-billionaires-faster-us (https://www.axios.com/2022/03/20/china-new-billionaires-faster-us)

I think there are few Communist countries left in the world. Two are North Korea and Cuba: they don't allow private corporations, although I think two companies in the latter have private investors with minority shares.

Interesting side note: China has had an average growth rate of around 7 pct across decades, one of the highest in the world. Cuba saw its economy grow by a factor of four in two decades, which means its ave. growth rate was around 10 pct per annum. The growth rate of North Korea is below middling, similar to that of the U.S.

I think it's a mixed economy, similar to that of the U.S., but it emphasized public ownership, e.g., cooperatives, state corporations. The CCP is also a major partner in foreign enterprises and has strategic planning.

The latter is an integral part of the so-called East Asian Miracle, which was started first by Japan, and then followed by South Korea, Taiwan, and many others in the region.

To recap, for nuclear power, take note of energy returns, if not both energy quanty and quality. Consider the bubble chart in this page:

http://theoildrum.com/node/3786 (http://theoildrum.com/node/3786)

Thus, you have an energy return (what you get from what you invest) plus energy supply demand (what the global economy needs to maintain basic needs, if not wants).

Given that, one source (Albert?) points out that with total uranium supplies worldwide may provide around 5 years of power if the world economy uses nuclear. Extract from the oceans, and you probably get an additional decade. But this does not factor in rare metals, etc., needed for reactors, etc. These have even greater supply constraints.

With that, plus the point that oil production per capita peaked back in 1979:

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/07/peak-oil-what-peak-oil.html (https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/07/peak-oil-what-peak-oil.html)

the world population will need to get every source of energy it can access in order to maintain the world economy.

Finally, possible sources that can replace nuclear are tide power and hopeful tech for geothermal:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF8J9OUuaSQ#)

https://www.quaise.energy/ (https://www.quaise.energy/)

The freaky thing, though, is that it reminds me of certain sci-fi disaster movies. Gee, what could go wrong?

I forgot to add this point, and this connects what I was talk about economies and late capitalism:

The energy supply mentioned refers to meeting basic needs. Capitalism goes beyond that.

For example, the U.S. only has around 5 pct of the world's population but needs around 20 pct of oil to power up around a quarter of the world's passenger vehicles and light trucks. It's part of a world population where the top 20 pct are responsible for over 60 pct of personal consumption.

One can argue that the 20 pct are lucky and that they have to say sorry to the 80 pct because the latter will never get what they have. Unfortunately, capitalism doesn't work that way: the 20 pct earn a lot from income and returns on investment because of greater sales of goods and services to.....the 80 pct.

In short, in order for the 20 pct to get what they want, their businesses have to sell more to the 80 pct, who are not only their customers but also their workers.

That's why the reference to late capitalism is important: in that stage, economies experience high levels of income which lead to high levels of consumption. That's why the ecological footprint per capita of richer countries is many times higher than those of poorer ones.

Meanwhile, more of the 80 pct are growing richer and consuming more, which is what the 20 pct want to happen for reasons already given:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470)

With that, some estimate that the amount of energy and resources needed to sustain such a global middle class will be the equivalent of three more earths.

That's why the question of going back to nuclear is a non-issue: we'll need to go back to that and more. That is, we'll need to put every energy source we can get our hands on online to maintain that global capitalist economy.