Going back to nuclear. For or Against? Please keep it civil.

[LilCerberus]

I'm sorry, what were we talking about?

[lester1/2jr]

China is a Communist country? LOL.

[Rev. Powell]

China is a Communist country? LOL.

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

[LilCerberus]

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?

[lester1/2jr]

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

[Rev. Powell]

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.

[Alex]

So... Nuclear power?

[lester1/2jr]

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"

[LilCerberus]

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....

[ralfy]

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

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.

[ralfy]

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.

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.

[ralfy]

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

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

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

https://www.quaise.energy/

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

[ralfy]

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

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.