3 ms·
If the US hadn't stopped building nuclear and merely continued at the same rate, half of our electricity would be CO2-free. With even modest growth assumptions,
by jjoonathan 7y ago
If the US hadn't stopped building nuclear and merely continued at the same rate, half of our electricity would be CO2-free. With even modest growth assumptions, 100% of our electricity would be CO2-free. Today. Not 50 years from now. Today.
It's a shame we decided nuclear was too dangerous and decided to pump our atmosphere full of carbon instead. I'm glad to see that China is making the right choice, I just wish we could have as well.
- reaperducer 7y agoIf the US hadn't stopped building nuclear The map shows three facilities under construction. I'm not sure that counts as "stopped."
- DuskStar 7y agoWhen did a new plant last come online in the US? I think it does count as stopped. Prior to Watts Bar unit #2 coming online in 2016, the previous reactor was Watts Bar unit #1 in 1996. So that's one reactor in the past 20 years, and 23 years since we last opened a new plant.
- reaperducer 7y agoSo the one that started construction in 2013 doesn't exist? 20 years between plants isn't that big a deal. They're not building houses. Nuclear reactors take decades to built. It's one of the reasons they're so expensive.
- DuskStar 7y agoIt's possible to build these things in parallel, so "each one takes 10 years to build" doesn't mean you can't still bring one reactor online each year. Either way, new reactor construction is not currently a significant source of new generation capacity in the US, and so I think it counts as "basically stopped".
- acallahan 7y agoThat's an impressive and surprising stat I've never heard before, and really puts the prospect of nuclear energy in perspective. Can you provide a source for this?