-->
@Sidewalker
Capitalism may suck for you, it worked out well for me.
No, it worked well for me too.
Capitalism sucks! Socialism (Government planned economy) is the best system!
Posts
Total:
128
-->
@Best.Korea
In terms of military power, its a great disadvantage.
You just have to build new planes. Keep in mind, if nuclear replaces everything except military use, then that's thousands of years of gasoline fuel for the military.
I agree, but thats not really an option. Its not like all countries would ever agree to abolish their militaries.
If the world was one nation and big nations are split up into many different states, then this is more plausible.
"With the world’s current uranium resources expected to be depleted by the end of the century, the search for new sources of uranium has become more urgent."
Key word is current; implying you can replenish uranium supplies.
-->
@Lemming
A hybrid , the best of advantages from both worlds , ok.
Well in that case, capitalism doesn't have to suck for anybody, appropriating it accordingly.
-->
@Mall
'Ideally, but,
Just because people 'can use something carefully, just because people can be 'encouraged to use something carefully, just because something is set up carefully,
Doesn't mean everything goes as planned.
-->
@TheUnderdog
You just have to build new planes.
Electric fighter planes arent as nearly as good as those which run on fuel.
Keep in mind, if nuclear replaces everything except military use, then that's thousands of years of gasoline fuel for the military.
You would maybe have that in planned economy. In capitalism, nuclear energy is too expensive and takes long time to build. Also, many people even today arent big fans of electric cars.
Key word is current; implying you can replenish uranium supplies
You can only replenish them if you find new sources of uranium.
Well this topic is getting a lot of replies, but I assumed it would die on account of the PROs being trolls. Let's see if I was wrong and there was serious debate going on.
Capitalism may suck for you, it worked out well for me.No, it worked well for me too.
As expected.
-->
@Best.Korea
Electric fighter planes arent as nearly as good as those which run on fuel.
Right now, you are correct. This won't always be the case though as the technology is improving. You need to think 4th dimensionally.
In capitalism, nuclear energy is too expensive and takes long time to build. Also, many people even today arent big fans of electric cars.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar and fossil fuels are only a thing still because of government subsidies. More people will get electric cars as time goes on though; they've only been around 5 years or so. Many people didn't even buy a car in the last 5 years. Around 1/17 new cars are electric cars (and it's growing, especially as the technology becomes cheaper to produce).
You can only replenish them if you find new sources of uranium.
Which is easy enough to do.
-->
@TheUnderdog
This won't always be the case though as the technology is improving.
But what if technology doesnt improve nearly enough in the next 30 years? Because you are arguing for the classical "lets spend as much as we can and hope that something comes up and saves us" mentality.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar
Nuclear power plant takes 5 to 10 years to be built.
Which is easy enough to do.
Is it? Because we arent finding new sources of uranium right now. What we have are just theories about how it could be found.
-->
@TheUnderdog
fossil fuels are only a thing still because of government subsidies.
Wait, how does government subsidies fuel?
-->
@Best.Korea
But what if technology doesnt improve nearly enough in the next 30 years? Because you are arguing for the classical "lets spend as much as we can and hope that something comes up and saves us" mentality.
Then we go without electricity. It is something I don't want to happen, but I'm not going to stop using energy in order to have there be a nominal extra amount of energy for everyone else.
Nuclear power plant takes 5 to 10 years to be built.
Then build the power plants in 5 to 10 years. We got enough time.
Is it? Because we arent finding new sources of uranium right now. What we have are just theories about how it could be found.
Right now we have enough of a supply to where it's not too essential to find new uranium. If you have 100 cooked burgers and you have to work to find a way to increase it to 10000, then you mainly focus on getting more burgers when your initial stash goes down to a low enough level.
Wait, how does government subsidies fuel?
Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI states the US government spends $20 billion/year on fossil fuel subsidies.
-->
@Best.Korea
Today's socialist has drained cobalt all over the planet to make cars nobody wants.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Then build the power plants in 5 to 10 years. We got enough time.
It takes 5 to 10 years to build a nuclear power plant, which means not only you must pay insane amounts of money to build it, but you still have to depend on other sources for the next 10 years.
The nuclear power plant such as the one in USA which produces 1400 megawatts would today cost at least 10 billion dollars.
There is about 50 of them or so.
So a 100 more of them, which would be needed to cover current electricity consumption, would cost 1000 billion dollars, which is 1 trillion.
However, if everyone switched to electric cars and if we had electric military, the electricity consumption would increase by over 100 times, which means it would cost 100 trillion dollars to switch to nuclear power, as you would need to build not 100 power plants, but 10,000 of them to cover the new consumption.
There are only 1% of electric cars in USA, so if all cars switched to electric, their electricity consumption would increase by 100 times.
US military uses 16,000,000,000 liters of fuel per year.
It would take lots of additional electricity production to replace all that fuel with electric power.
This is in addition to the fact that all the money will also have to be used to replace fuel cars, fuel air planes, fuel fighter planes, fuel tanks...ect.
Both military and civilian segment would have to be built from start, as none of the current tanks or air planes would be useful anymore.
Plus, additional costs would rise from the fact that electric cars and electric air planes and electric tanks would break down much more often. Some sources even say that electric cars break down 10 times more often than cars which run on fuel.
USA is struggling with inflation, and paying 100 trillion dollars by 2050 (4 trillion per year) would likely cause economic collapse.
Its a price not even USA can afford to pay by 2050, let alone the rest of the world who is much poorer than USA is.
So even if you manage to find additional uranium supplies, it is still too expensive even for USA, so you can imagine how much more difficult would it be for the rest of the world.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would say US government subsidies renewables the most.
From FY 2016 to FY 2022, nearly half (46 percent) of federal energy subsidies were associated with renewable energy
But renewable is only 20% of energy, but gets 46% of subsidies.
-->
@Greyparrot
Today's socialist has drained cobalt all over the planet to make cars nobody wants.
Its a mix of socialism and capitalism in USA, a mix that doesnt work so well because government is trying to use greed to control capitalist greed. Giving tax break to electric car doesnt mean anything when those cars cost more in long run.
-->
@Best.Korea
There's a grand total of zero capitalists that want to make a car that nobody wants.
-->
@Greyparrot
There's a grand total of zero capitalists that want to make a car that nobody wants.
Lol true
-->
@Best.Korea
Socialism is when you go shopping, but all you get to do is push the cart and pay for the stuff other people throw into it.
-->
@Greyparrot
Thats all governments too.
-->
@Best.Korea
Correct. All existing governments are corrupt, and/or socialist.
The best government will allow you to put whatever you want in your cart as long as you pay for it and take ownership and responsibility.
-->
@Greyparrot
The best government will allow you to put whatever you want in your cart as long as you pay for it and take ownership and responsibility.
So capitalist anarchy?
Well, obviously, it would lower expenses, if nothing.
-->
@Best.Korea
It can't be anarchy as you need a government to make sure consumers take personal responsibility for the stuff they buy.
-->
@Greyparrot
It can't be anarchy as you need a government to make sure consumers take personal responsibility for the stuff they buy.
So government with least interference in economy then?
-->
@Best.Korea
Not really. I prefer an eye-for-an-eye government approach with a free market.
For example: You buy a Tiger and put it in your shopping cart.
If the Tiger eats someone, you get thrown into a tiger pen. If it eats more than one, your family gets thrown into a tiger pen.
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, so government which punishes people who buy things that end up killing other people?
-->
@Best.Korea
Or any other harm.
The future is Fusion Power. A prototype of a fusion reactor (DEMO) is expected to be built by 2040. Electricity generation and exploitation is also expected to take place in the second half of the century, depending on funding and technical advancement.
-->
@Best.Korea
It takes 5 to 10 years to build a nuclear power plant, which means not only you must pay insane amounts of money to build it, but you still have to depend on other sources for the next 10 years.
You can't get off of fossil fuels immediately, but starting now, there should be enough nuclear power plants built to completely replace fossil fuels. All funds would be privately financed as nuclear energy is profitable.
However, if everyone switched to electric cars and if we had electric military, the electricity consumption would increase by over 100 times, which means it would cost 100 trillion dollars to switch to nuclear power, as you would need to build not 100 power plants, but 10,000 of them to cover the new consumption.
It's all privately financed (not a single government dollar has to go to nuclear production); and there would be incentives to do this because according to some math I did, nuclear energy pays for it's self in 7 years; and after that; it's pure profit.
Some sources even say that electric cars break down 10 times more often than cars which run on fuel.
I don't think this is true. My Dad has had an electric car for 5 years and the average gas car lasts for 8 years.
But renewable is only 20% of energy, but gets 46% of subsidies.
This is true, but I'm not an advocate of renewable energy; I'm an advocate of nuclear energy (and no federal funds; all privately funded). The vast majority of nuclear plants in this country are privately owned. They aren't too common in some states due to government bans or restrictions on their production. There is a reason why nuclear energy is a libertarian idea; they don't want to subsidize the plants; they just want to remove government caps on how many plants can exist.
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's all privately financed
Private buisnesses cant afford to spend 100 trillion dollars in USA by 2050.
-->
@Best.Korea
Private buisnesses cant afford to spend 100 trillion dollars in USA by 2050.
The US GDP is about $25 trillion/year. In 25 years, the cumulative GDP would be $625 trillion. This measures salary, not net worth.
The stock market is $45 trillion last time I checked and stocks go up 10% a year on average. This is about $500 trillion.
This totals to about $1125 trillion collectively.
This is without inflation.
There would be investment firms that are willing to invest $100 trillion in something that delivers a 14% annual rate of return (more than generic stocks). It is also an investment that has a low beta (meaning it's not risky) because people will need energy, like consistently.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The US GDP is about $25 trillion/year.
GDP is a sum of products sold in total in a country. People are not going to give up food and basic items to build nuclear power plants, nor they can afford to, as most people are living near poverty. Thus, total GDP is irrelevant to money available for nuclear power plants.
The stock market is $45 trillion last time I checked and stocks go up 10% a year on average. This is about $500 trillion.
This is irrelevant, as prices go up as well. So the price will be far more than 100 trillion by 2050.
It is unreasonable to expect that prices will stay same by 2050.
But you are talking about stock market, so what is it exactly that you are suggesting?
Do you really think everyone will sell their stocks to buy nuclear power plants?
And to who would they sell them to if everyone is selling? To China?
Well, unless your plan is to sell all stocks to China, I dont see what is it that you are suggesting will happen.