5 ms·

That might have been the US industrial peak. Since then the big industrial projects have been getting smaller and/or got outsourced to Asia. Nuclear could have

by roenxi 3y ago

That might have been the US industrial peak. Since then the big industrial projects have been getting smaller and/or got outsourced to Asia. Nuclear could have powered the next big thing, but they slammed the abort button on the progress in that direction. Semiconductors maybe, but the US sort-of removed itself from that market.

lostemptations5 3y ago
But at least we are healthy and not all radioactive -- aside from the microplastics and forever chemicals.
- keyle 3y ago
  not just microplastics and forever chemicals. Just take a look at the population and compare it to 50 years ago.
- melling 3y ago
  And the mercury emitted from all that coal we still burn: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09080-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09080-6 And in our chemical processes https://news.mongabay.com/2022/09/chinese-companies-slated-for-mercury-pollution-in-cameroon/ https://news.mongabay.com/2022/09/chinese-companies-slated-f... I imagine we’d be talking about going carbon neutral by 2100 instead of 2050 if we hadn’t burned so much coal We should reach peak coal sometime in this decade: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-15/coal-s-peak-is-here-but-demise-of-dirtiest-fuel-will-be-slow https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-15/coal-s-pe...
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  Coal power plants release more radioactive waste into the environment than nuclear ones...
atleastoptimal 3y ago
it really is f-ing over for the US. Good thing we have AI though without it China would 100% be the sole superpower by 2035
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  > "Two there should be. No more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it." Recall, only a Sith deals in absolutes.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  Nah, we offshored too much and are bringing enough back. The cycles are good. As a leader we need to bring up the rest of the world. We’ll always be in the “losing” position because there’s nowhere more up to go. Basically normal cycles are happening, there’s room to criticize but overdoing it and correcting is expected, life is a big sine wave in so very many ways, we’re taught to expect constant small growth but that’s just not how the universe works.
- oldpersonintx 3y ago
  [dead]
pfdietz 3y ago
I view the manned space program back then as something highly pathological. It was enormously expensive and arguably of little benefit. Do taxpayers really need to be on the hook for prestige of the government (read: politicians)? The adulation of astronauts as heroes was just part of the sickness.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  For each individual person, county, or state it wasn't even that expensive. And it allowed the entire country to come together and do something cool as a society. This has value that you should never underestimate: it improves morale, and spurs innovation and industriousness, with effects far beyond the national effort. Unfortunately it didn't also herald in a new (and rather more ethical) era of colonization at the time. In fact we've been in a bit of a space exploration winter for a while. But new developments look really promising. This time we might end up a 'multiplanetary' species.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    At its peak, Apollo was several percent of federal government spending. That is expensive, and the putative benefits you suggest are certainly (IMO) not worth that cost. Your argument sounds like the kind of rationalization a special interest puts out when their hand is found in the cookie jar.
    - lstamour 3y ago
      I won't say these are the best sources, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... suggest that at its peak during the space race, NASA spending reached 4% of the government budget while if I'm reading the charts correctly, the government routinely spends up to 4% on the millitary every year since. I'd personally classify the Apollo program then as a rounding error as I pay more than that in sales tax and often don't notice... and that was at its peak.
smallmancontrov 3y ago
Exports got dumped but assets got pumped and that's what really matters! /s, but this is why it happened.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
Is nuclear powering the next big thing in Asia?
- fragmede 3y ago
  In China, specifically; yes. > It has 38 nuclear power reactors in operation and 19 under construction1/. It has increased its number of operating reactors by more than ten times since 2000 and plans to bring five units into commercial operation this year alone. It is China, the fastest expanding nuclear power generator in the world. -International Atomic Energy Agency https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-china-has-become-the-worlds-fastest-expanding-nuclear-power-producer#:~:text=China's%20energy%20regulator%2C%20the%20National,competitive%2C%20Chinese%20experts%20have%20said https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-china-has-become-the-world....
  - roenxi 3y ago
    They're also working out how to build them without easy access to water (NB: edge of the Gobi Desert). These are exciting developments. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-28/china-thorium-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-energy/100351932 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-28/china-thorium-molten-...
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      In the near term, China will build all its nuclear power plants in the east anyways since they have a surplus of renewable energy in the west with the trick being transmission (UHV infra not withstanding, it still seems to be an issue).
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    China deployed more renewables in the first nine months of 2023 (adjusted for capacity factor!) than will be generated by all 26 of their nuclear plants under construction. If you're talking about "the next big thing", this is it -- the ability to deploy energy generation capacity at rate never seen before in human history. You are "oohing and aahing" over vacuum tubes while humanity invents the microprocessor.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by roenxi 3y ago

lostemptations5 3y ago

But at least we are healthy and not all radioactive -- aside from the microplastics and forever chemicals.

keyle 3y ago
not just microplastics and forever chemicals. Just take a look at the population and compare it to 50 years ago.
melling 3y ago
And the mercury emitted from all that coal we still burn: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09080-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09080-6 And in our chemical processes https://news.mongabay.com/2022/09/chinese-companies-slated-for-mercury-pollution-in-cameroon/ https://news.mongabay.com/2022/09/chinese-companies-slated-f... I imagine we’d be talking about going carbon neutral by 2100 instead of 2050 if we hadn’t burned so much coal We should reach peak coal sometime in this decade: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-15/coal-s-peak-is-here-but-demise-of-dirtiest-fuel-will-be-slow https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-15/coal-s-pe...
RobotToaster 3y ago
Coal power plants release more radioactive waste into the environment than nuclear ones...

atleastoptimal 3y ago

it really is f-ing over for the US. Good thing we have AI though without it China would 100% be the sole superpower by 2035

082349872349872 3y ago
> "Two there should be. No more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it." Recall, only a Sith deals in absolutes.
colechristensen 3y ago
Nah, we offshored too much and are bringing enough back. The cycles are good. As a leader we need to bring up the rest of the world. We’ll always be in the “losing” position because there’s nowhere more up to go. Basically normal cycles are happening, there’s room to criticize but overdoing it and correcting is expected, life is a big sine wave in so very many ways, we’re taught to expect constant small growth but that’s just not how the universe works.
oldpersonintx 3y ago
[dead]

pfdietz 3y ago

I view the manned space program back then as something highly pathological. It was enormously expensive and arguably of little benefit. Do taxpayers really need to be on the hook for prestige of the government (read: politicians)? The adulation of astronauts as heroes was just part of the sickness.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
For each individual person, county, or state it wasn't even that expensive. And it allowed the entire country to come together and do something cool as a society. This has value that you should never underestimate: it improves morale, and spurs innovation and industriousness, with effects far beyond the national effort. Unfortunately it didn't also herald in a new (and rather more ethical) era of colonization at the time. In fact we've been in a bit of a space exploration winter for a while. But new developments look really promising. This time we might end up a 'multiplanetary' species.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  At its peak, Apollo was several percent of federal government spending. That is expensive, and the putative benefits you suggest are certainly (IMO) not worth that cost. Your argument sounds like the kind of rationalization a special interest puts out when their hand is found in the cookie jar.
  - lstamour 3y ago
    I won't say these are the best sources, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... suggest that at its peak during the space race, NASA spending reached 4% of the government budget while if I'm reading the charts correctly, the government routinely spends up to 4% on the millitary every year since. I'd personally classify the Apollo program then as a rounding error as I pay more than that in sales tax and often don't notice... and that was at its peak.

smallmancontrov 3y ago

Exports got dumped but assets got pumped and that's what really matters! /s, but this is why it happened.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

Is nuclear powering the next big thing in Asia?

fragmede 3y ago
In China, specifically; yes. > It has 38 nuclear power reactors in operation and 19 under construction1/. It has increased its number of operating reactors by more than ten times since 2000 and plans to bring five units into commercial operation this year alone. It is China, the fastest expanding nuclear power generator in the world. -International Atomic Energy Agency https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-china-has-become-the-worlds-fastest-expanding-nuclear-power-producer#:~:text=China's%20energy%20regulator%2C%20the%20National,competitive%2C%20Chinese%20experts%20have%20said https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-china-has-become-the-world....
- roenxi 3y ago
  They're also working out how to build them without easy access to water (NB: edge of the Gobi Desert). These are exciting developments. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-28/china-thorium-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-energy/100351932 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-28/china-thorium-molten-...
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    In the near term, China will build all its nuclear power plants in the east anyways since they have a surplus of renewable energy in the west with the trick being transmission (UHV infra not withstanding, it still seems to be an issue).
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  China deployed more renewables in the first nine months of 2023 (adjusted for capacity factor!) than will be generated by all 26 of their nuclear plants under construction. If you're talking about "the next big thing", this is it -- the ability to deploy energy generation capacity at rate never seen before in human history. You are "oohing and aahing" over vacuum tubes while humanity invents the microprocessor.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]