Electric cargo ships WHEN?

But they are? Those generators make electricity to drive the propellers

the word you were looking for was "nuclear"

>t.

Attached: soy.png (644x800, 15K)

Go back.

And how would you aquire all the things you use daily?

Such a miniscule amount of the goods shipped that its literally not an argument

Attached: (JPEG Image, 275 × 183 pixels).jpg (275x183, 8K)

>Such a miniscule amount of the goods shipped that its literally not an argument
Have fun living, and buying the shit made only in your own neighborhood user.

Meant for this retard.
>You mean like producing things locally so you don't have to ship them half way around the world

Dumbest thing I've read today

Please Shuaybi yourself

>merchant nuclear is a bad idea
>nuclear subs have been in use since ww2
the counter to this argument is left as an exercise to the reader

> >nuclear subs have been in use since ww2
> the counter to this argument is left as an exercise to the reader
In other words, you have no argument.

Attached: image.jpg (500x700, 354K)

OP points out something I've been thinking for ages, and that's been haunting me. I know peak oil is so cliché of a term ppl get tired of hearing it, but once supplies start to dwindle, what to we prioritize? driving to work? shipping food overseas? our military? prices will skyrocket, and we're simply unready to face this. We have no plan B. the chinese aren't going to ship kitchen ustensils or computers if we can't pay for it anymore, and they certainly won't prioritize us over their own needs. also the US will be paralyzed from having no alternative means of transportation (our way of life depends almost entirely on oil and electricity)

pic related - depends on oil to operate. without oil, how do we get food to the cities to feed ppl? forget about not getting the iphone 15 at that point.

instead of bickering about genders, collusions, or even rogue states, it would be wise to look at the long-term future in terms of planning. we still have a little bit of funds and resources to build an infrastructure that doesn't rely on this. don't way till the meter reads 0 to start building.

Attached: combine harvester.jpg (800x600, 130K)

We have alternatives and promising research for more alternatives but nobody wants to invest in something that is decades off. I don’t think it’ll be a massive problem though, enough people are waking up.

Legalize psychedelics and begin living with the land, not off of it.

Don't be daft. It would be the equivalent of putting a toaster in the bathtub, and it would kill any coastal citizens.

Attached: image-3.jpg (1080x1220, 165K)

How about you try actually reading the posts you respond to.
Here, I'll point it out to you since you're so blind:
>merchant nuclear is a bad idea
>merchant
>MERCHANT

Same thing as everything else in the universe: when it's cheaper than fossil fuels.

That’s like saying civilian nuclear power was a bad idea. Despite three notable accidents in over sixty years, it’s still the safest form of energy. There are also designs for reactors that are completely sealed and can run for decades without maintenance. When they reach the end of their life, they can simply be swapped out.

Humanity has always been able to adapt to just about anything, so long as there has been plenty of time to do so. We are already seeing the beginnings of that with shit like Tesla. Now, granted, its in its infancy, so the only people who are going to invest are going to be those with more dollars than sense, much like the first purchasers of Plasma Screen TVs. But as production ramps up, costs will scale down, vastly reducing the need for oil, and much of what little demand remains is compatible with synthetic oil (which you can also see the beginnings of if you go to the automotive section of any store, and look at the tubs of oil for sale; pure synthetic is the most expensive, and not yet good for high mileage cars, but its still everywhere).

I'm not concerned about oil, and won't be. Between natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and all the other forms of power production that isn't Diesel, we are set, and have already begun the transition. Now, if we were back in the 70s during that gas crunch, I'd be a little more concerned.

You can never trust sea people to follow maintenance schedules or safety regulations. How much worse can it get when you add reactor operations and decommissioning to their plate?

Literally the last two sentences of my post.

perfectly possible if first-world wages drop. At the moment they're so expensive that shipping stuff around the world is cheaper.

First world wages aren't dropping, thanks to groups like the fight for 15. That said, automation will remedy this problem, and already is.
redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/04/10/fight-15-crowd-now-protesting-self-checkout-machines-replacing/
>In fact, it’s not having to give the machine sick time off, they don’t have to worry about it suddenly walking off the job, and they definitely don’t have to worry about it coming back with a picket sign and demanding more money. If forced to cave to the demands, like some local governments have done for protesters, then the store will suddenly find itself in financial hot water. This results in having to lay people off, and instead of having a minimum wage for flipping burgers, they get no wages for having no job.

>But the left has little knowledge about economics, and as a result is viewing these machines as an enemy brought to defeat them, not the solution to a problem that they created. Naturally, as a leftist will, they’ve decided to protest them.

I would wait until the technology takes off for terrestrial use before making wild guesses about marine applications.

The newest ones can actually run off nuclear waste, too. That means installing new generations of nuclear power plants would actually REDUCE the amount of nuclear waste.

But, user, Israel already have nuclear power..

I got to tour the Savannah a few years ago. Was cool.

Attached: nssavannah.jpg (1280x853, 328K)

Do you have moar?

As a proponent of nuclear energy, I would say that their fear isn't irrational, so long as they fear any combustion engine even more.

Retard that's what he was saying

That's not at all what he was saying. He was saying that it's currently cheaper to ship shit across the world, not that the problem is remedying itself via automation.

damn, no wonder I haven't been seeing all of those gold cargo ships lately, local economies must be killing globalization

Deck Map at stairwell

Attached: nssavannahdeckmap.jpg (1280x853, 298K)

Sorry forgot to reply to the right post. Here's the reactor/engine control

Attached: nssavannahcontrol.jpg (1280x853, 404K)

View of bow from near the bridge

Attached: nssavannahbow.jpg (1280x853, 388K)

And the backside of the reactor containment vessel (hence the slanted wall). I wasn't able to get a good view of inside from the small window built into one of the doors.

Attached: nssavannahcontainment.jpg (1280x853, 302K)

That building really needs a paintjob, or at least a power washing. It looks like it was set on fire.

100% with ya on that
We're not all fucking soy boys, most of us can make and repair much of our shit. We don't end globalization just bring it down several notches
You sound like a faggot euro that doesnt have the national capacity and workforce to create what the nation needs >pic just for you

Attached: wop_gwen_laff.png (957x725, 471K)

How is merchant nuclear a bad idea? "Refuelling" happens once every twenty something years on a Supercarrier, it wouldn't actually be that intensive for the DoE to set up a controlled system for it.

Unless you think anything involving the word "nuclear" means giant exploding thing.

Found another eurofag. Sorry Achmed that you can produce what you need. but hey more rapefugees will help that!

>goes from country to neighborhood
>still mad

Fuckin aye Muhammed

Attached: almost_unpleasant.png (384x390, 175K)

Yet they're everything that make the modern world run.

>eh still buys in to nationalism in 2018
>eh wants to delay the inevitable just for more time with his borders
how awkward

>recipient (you)

Attached: 25793275.png (1190x906, 178K)

Provided the world doesn't go full communist, then as soon as market forces make not-oil more economically viable, it'll happen. Keep in mind that entails replacing an entire infrastructure, sure as shit won't happen overnight as the entire world is quite literally covered in fossil vehicles and industry. We're seeing very slow development, research, and adoption cycles because alt energy is sort of a token of academia at the moment - on top of all of which, we still can't figure out how to innovate batteries beyond Li-Ion.

What does this future look like? Does technology continue to advance and permeate every aspect of our lives?

What happens to the cities? Will people tend to drift back towards small communities living in nature?

>How is merchant nuclear a bad idea?
It's not economical to pay people who know what they're doing to look after the reactors.

Enormous security risk. By the time you're done satisfying everybody who'd let the thing dock in their harbor while also preventing the somali shuffle, you've spent as much on security as you would on fuel per year.

Not all fossil fuels are oil based. Coal and natural gas, for example. But you are absolutely correct in regards to infrastructure being the bottle neck. If the entire US switched to electric cars tomorrow, there's be rolling blackouts everywhere.

>water
>lithium
kek

Don't entertain his stupid as fuck ideas. He's a modern hippie. It doesn't and won't work, and any nation that tried would be crushed by the nations that didn't follow suit.

>>What happens to the cities? Will people tend to drift back towards small communities living in nature?
there'll be two places - rural areas full of batshit-crazy hill people, and crowded cyberpunk-dystopia cities of disaffected people who either know no other life or are too scared to leave.

It's less labor than insurance and liability. Along with capex, reactors are fucking expensive and take many years to pay themselves off in reduced fuel costs.

>How is merchant nuclear a bad idea?
because
>muh safety
>muh proliferation
insurance rates would make this close to totally unfeasible

in my country new 3rd gen plant will cost about $15-20B because of all overregulated bullshit
it's fucking insane

>there'll be two places - rural areas full of batshit-crazy hill people, and crowded cyberpunk-dystopia cities of disaffected people who either know no other life or are too scared to leave.
It's already like that.

It can get a lot more.

that guy can't speak properly lol
it's an alien trying speech

It's going that way anyway. Why would psychadelics make it worse?

> If the entire US switched to electric cars tomorrow, there's be rolling blackouts everywhere.
That seems like quite an exaggeration. They wouldn’t all be charging from 0-100% during peak load, they’d be partially charged and finish during off-peak hours.

> muh safety
> muh proliferation
See > in my country new 3rd gen plant will cost about $15-20B because of all overregulated bullshit
Fellow burger? Also
> current year
> caring about gen III
No new Gen IIIs should be allowed anywhere.

Doesn't matter, really. The bigger the device, the later it will be before they make the switch. This is due to cost, efficiency, and scale of production. Not to mention that the bigger things get, the fewer people that will want them.

Humans trying to advance as quickly as possible is a direct cause of global warming because of the emissions of their machines. As you've pointed out, the only reason why they feel the need to advance as quickly as possible is so that they can avoid being "crushed by nations that didn't follow suit." I don't believe humans are capable of overcoming this barrier without the use of psychedelics and you seem to disagree. Before we take this discussion any further, have you taken psychedelics?

Not him but how will you get everyone to take psychedelics and have your mystical experiences? Your solution is subject to the exact same problem: some people will choose not to do it and then take over the people who do. You'll just be dividing them by drug-use status instead of by nation-state allegiance.

>supporting yourself
>not working
Please take a remedial English course before continuing to post.

Attached: 1522536729497.png (563x563, 310K)

>Not him but how will you get everyone to take psychedelics and have your mystical experiences?

I never suggested this and will never advocate for forcing people to take psychedelics. Legalization is a necessary step to their acceptance.

Not him, but if you are walking down that road, why force people to rely on something that could eventually have a shortage? Why not literally lobotomize everyone (which is permanent), instead of doing it chemically (which is temporary)?

If you don't force them to do it, then the people who opt not to will exploit those who choose to take them.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'shortage'? I don't want to go into depth about how powerful LSD is at the microgram level if you already know how many doses you can get with a single batch.

How will they be exploited?

There will always be some who choose not to partake thought. And you won't stand a chance of solving the original problem of nation-states preying on each other unless all of them legalize. How do you propose to accomplish that? We can't even get a worldwide agreement on things like "Nerve gas is bad, let's nobody use that stuff".

How WOULDN'T they be exploited? Furthermore, how would society not stagnate? The only person I can think of that was on psychedelics for a long period of time was an artist.

While I lived in Germany, they had apples from NEW ZEALAND in the stores. Why?

Because of the EU. Not joking. The regulations on a head of lettuce have more words than the entire bible. It's like that with literally everything in the EU. Regulations strangle them badly enough that they need to turn to countries outside the EU to fill the gap.

And our apples in Hungary are rotting on the trees. This is really the union of the future, thanks Merkel!

>How do you propose to accomplish that?
I'm not saying that we will ever accomplish it. All I've said is that it is a necessary step to their acceptance, which is another step towards being able to live with nature instead of exploiting it. Whether or not this actually comes to pass is out of any of our control. We can only do what we think is best for the future we want to live in.

It's quite possible that we will never change and suffer the consequences of global warming. It's also possible that the consequences are overblown and everything I'm saying is malarkey. I don't think that's the case, but I could be wrong.

>How WOULDN'T they be exploited
Please address my question with a more substantive response.

>how would society not stagnate
I believe progress would slow down considerably, but not stagnate. This is the most significant point of contention with the argument I'm trying to make and I understand the implications of it. Look at the Native Americans, for example. Psychedelics were an integral part of most of their cultures and they ended up being eradicated by other cultures that did not value psychedelics and instead focused on expanding their power and capabilities. You don't want to end up like them, right? To that I say, "No, of course not." But who are the invaders of the future? The entire planet has been explored for the most part and most land is already owned. In all seriousness, the next logical step is to think about extraterrestrial threats. These threats may or may not exist and if they do, you would have a very good point about progressing stagnating (and slowing.) If extraterrestrial threats do not exist, then I think that the greatest threat humans face is themselves and they also have the power to mitigate that threat.

WOKE

Not anyone you were responding to, but:
>I believe progress would slow down considerably, but not stagnate.
Good thing we've got your belief. Hey, everyone, this anonymous dude on the internet believes something, so that gives us the green light!

The USSR didn't even use psychedelics, and they stagnated. In the 1980s, the were literally using light therapy to combat cancer. Why? Because there was no motivation to improve. Talking about that, this brings up another question: would you be comfortable with a brain surgeon performing an operation on you while tripping on acid? If so, you're a dumbass. If not, I've just given you a good reason not to drug the entire population.

Just run your picrelated on rape oil or ethanol like they do in Brazil

>would you be comfortable with a brain surgeon performing an operation on you while tripping on acid?
You are actually retarded if you think this is anything close to what has been implied by anything I have written. I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about and are letting your inhibition towards drugs influence a biased argument.

>European
>Union

The US also has biodiesel and E-85, or whatever its called.

>You: "Let's get everyone on psychedelics!"
>Him:"Would you want a brain surgeon to operate you while on acid?"
>You: "You must be retarded if you think this is anything close to what has been implied by anything I have written."
Care to go on, or are you just going to leave that hanging there?

There probably isn't enough copper in the world to make that many electric cars anyway

>Good thing we've got your belief. Hey, everyone, this anonymous dude on the internet believes something, so that gives us the green light!
So you believe it *will* stagnate? Good thing we've got your belief. Hey, everyone, this anonymous dude on the internet believes something, so that gives us the red light!

You may not have the mental capacity to handle psychedelics. They're not for everyone.

No clue. But looking at the sheer number of old, useless pennies in the US, I can't help but imagine that we would be ok with production for a long time.

And yeah, I know new pennies aren't copper (the US has begun debasing their own currency like Rome did, surely a good sign!).

Name 3 people who uses psychedelics regularly that has innovated anything tech-related, and I'll cede the argument to you.

LSD lasts for 8-12 hours and has roughly a three-day 'cooldown' period where you will receive a greatly diminished effect from the same dose, if any effect at all. If you did any research on the matter you'd know that. If you actually took LSD (I know you're afraid and so do you), then you would get to see for yourself why it is not like tobacco or marijuana and why your argument is laughable to anyone who more experience than you. I suggest doing research because you really look foolish when you talk with such absolution on topics you know very little about.

>Care to go on, or are you just going to leave that hanging there?
Please go on, you're showing everyone what a mental midget you are.

Biodiesel is a meme and ethanol is an outright scam.

Attached: image.jpg (300x300, 104K)

popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/fyi-can-acid-trip-really-give-you-flashbacks
>A recent study published in PLOS ONE by Norwegian University of Science and Technology neuroscientist Teri Krebs found no association between using psychedelics, including using LSD in the past year, and seeing things other people don't. But psychiatrists who work with psychedelic users say that the phenomenon, though very rare, is also very real.

>"I don't think there's any question that HPPD is a genuine clinical phenomenon."In 1986, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders included diagnostic criteria for what later became known as Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD), the clinical term for seeing weird, trippy things like geometric hallucinations, flashes of color, afterimages and false perceptions of movement after taking psychedelics. To be considered a candidate for HPPD, the type of visual phenomena that occurs during an acid trip has to spontaneously reappear "long after the use of hallucinogens has stopped," cause significant distress, and not be explainable by any other mental disorder or medical condition. For many, it's less of a sudden "flashback" and more of a continuous disturbance of vision.
Yup, I'm totally fine with letting a brain surgeon who has tripped on acid in the past operate on me.

>though very rare, is also very real.
If a doctor isn't displaying any symptoms of such a disorder, you would have no idea whether or not he ever tripped unless he told you.

Quite a flimsy structure to build you argument upon but I didn't expect much from you given everything you've said.

Please, go on innocent child.

>You: "Let's get everyone on psychedelics!"
Textbook strawman. There should really be a proficiency test required before letting you post here.

Nothing to go on about. If it's even a remote possibility, then there's a reason for it to not be allowable. Just like drinking shouldn't be allowable if drinking can get you drunk long after you've sobered up.

>I don't like it so it's a scam