5 ms·

> The US isn't the sole contributor to climate change and I'm tired of pretending like it is. The hypothetical being discussed is "what if the US had went the

> The US isn't the sole contributor to climate change and I'm tired of pretending like it is. The hypothetical being discussed is "what if the US had went the same route as France and built an electricity grid with the majority of power being generated from nuclear rather than fossil" and for that we would consider the impact to the total (or cumulative) emissions during those decades. As such, here is an "Our World in Data" article on the cumulative CO₂ emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 In particular, the nominal cumulative emissions of the US were approximately the double of China. (A higher factor if considered per capita) If the US had built nuclear technology many other countries (particularly NATO) would have also seen a higher nuclear adoption. This would have accelerated some trends such as electric ovens and stovetops, electric trains (maybe even nuclear-electric rather than disel-electric), and local micro-nuclear generators on industry such as in metalwork.

godelski 5y ago
Let's say the US went to 0 emissions. That's 15% of the global emissions whipped out (note, France is doing awesome, and setting a great example, but not anywhere near 0 emissions). If the US was 0 emissions since 2000, we'd still be in a climate crisis. That is essentially what I'm saying. It would be decreased from where we are, yes. But it wouldn't be a "minor issue" as the OP stated.
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  If the US had built 500 nuclear reactors, I have no doubt we'd be exporting tech and basing trade agreements on getting other countries to buy our reactors. China might still use coal, but US manufacturing would be more attractive with practically free electricity. There are lots of reasons what OP posited would be true.
  - godelski 5y ago
    To where? The EU? Yeah. I kinda mentioned that. But South Africa? Brazil? Pakistan? I doubt that very much.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      South Africa, Brazil, and Pakistan all already have nuclear power. South Africa and Pakistan even developed nuclear weapons, though SA gave theirs up just before they ended apartheid. IMO the proliferation concerns are a little irrational and overblown, so if we're positing a counterfactual where US policy wasn't governed by an irrational fear of nuclear technology, I think it's fair to assume this would change as well.
      - godelski 5y ago
        I'm very aware of the proliferation issue. To be clear, I have worked in the nuclear space. But that still doesn't mean that fears of proliferation would have disappeared if we had a larger reliance on nuclear power. Those countries weren't said as examples of countries without nuclear power. They are examples of countries that have it but still likely wouldn't have had any exports from the US. I thought the Pakistan example made this abundantly clear. Maybe I confused people by including Brazil, but there was pressure on them during the cold war.
        philwelch 5y ago
        > But that still doesn't mean that fears of proliferation would have disappeared if we had a larger reliance on nuclear power. Not necessarily, but you're positing a world in which the widescale adoption of nuclear power has no effects at all, and I think that's an unreasonable assumption. Right now we don't see it as a big deal to restrict nuclear exports because we see nuclear as some dangerous fringe technology rather than as the default energy source for a 21st century civilization.
        godelski 5y ago
        > you're positing a world in which the widescale adoption of nuclear power has no effects at all No I'm not. I'm saying that if the US went highly nuclear that it does not directly follow that the rest of the world would also. I'm saying it is a bad assumption to make. > Right now we don't see it as a big deal to restrict nuclear exports It still is a big deal, but it was even a bigger deal 20-30 years ago (the timeframe we are talking about). As a good example, less than 10 years ago I was working on a project that involved nuclear technologies and a university partner. I was not allowed to talk specifics to any of the international students that were _directly_ working on the project (you bet they were smart enough to figure out what they were making). While nothing was classified, it still fell under ITAR and the FBI was talking to me several times a year. Nuclear technology exports are still a very big deal.
neaanopri 5y ago
US also influences policy adopted by other countries, so if the US adopted the French nuclear model, we would influence other countries. I think we're hurt by our domestic oil and gas reserves here. We have powerful interests who want the US to use its domestic oil and gas reserves, so a large-scale shift TO nuclear and AWAY FROM gas seems quite difficult to execute.
- godelski 5y ago
  This is quite limited though and is why I talked about also including Europe. The limitation is that the US isn't going to let developing nations have nuclear power or they'll limit it, a la Iran Deal. The technology isn't really being exported, so that influence wouldn't be exactly global. Just to rich trading partners (i.e. the west, Japan, and Korea).
  - fabianhjr 5y ago
    > The technology isn't really being exported, so that influence wouldn't be exactly global. China has started exporting their Hualong One reactor with at least two Pakistani Nuclear Power Stations building a total of 5 Hualong One reactors: Karachi and Chashma. Argentina is expected to start building a Hualong One reactor by next year and it is under consideration in the United Kingdom. > Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though there are major plans for new units in Russia. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-an... > China is planning at least 150 new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli... If it goes anything like their buildout of high speed railway China would probably end up doubling the reactor capacity built by 2035 over this plan.
    - spfzero 5y ago
      The article mentions Turkey as well, using Russian tech. When a NATO country chooses nuclear tech from the country that brought us Chernobyl, the US is definitely asleep at the wheel.

godelski 5y ago

Let's say the US went to 0 emissions. That's 15% of the global emissions whipped out (note, France is doing awesome, and setting a great example, but not anywhere near 0 emissions). If the US was 0 emissions since 2000, we'd still be in a climate crisis. That is essentially what I'm saying. It would be decreased from where we are, yes. But it wouldn't be a "minor issue" as the OP stated.

arrosenberg 5y ago
If the US had built 500 nuclear reactors, I have no doubt we'd be exporting tech and basing trade agreements on getting other countries to buy our reactors. China might still use coal, but US manufacturing would be more attractive with practically free electricity. There are lots of reasons what OP posited would be true.
- godelski 5y ago
  To where? The EU? Yeah. I kinda mentioned that. But South Africa? Brazil? Pakistan? I doubt that very much.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    South Africa, Brazil, and Pakistan all already have nuclear power. South Africa and Pakistan even developed nuclear weapons, though SA gave theirs up just before they ended apartheid. IMO the proliferation concerns are a little irrational and overblown, so if we're positing a counterfactual where US policy wasn't governed by an irrational fear of nuclear technology, I think it's fair to assume this would change as well.
    - godelski 5y ago
      I'm very aware of the proliferation issue. To be clear, I have worked in the nuclear space. But that still doesn't mean that fears of proliferation would have disappeared if we had a larger reliance on nuclear power. Those countries weren't said as examples of countries without nuclear power. They are examples of countries that have it but still likely wouldn't have had any exports from the US. I thought the Pakistan example made this abundantly clear. Maybe I confused people by including Brazil, but there was pressure on them during the cold war.
      - philwelch 5y ago
        > But that still doesn't mean that fears of proliferation would have disappeared if we had a larger reliance on nuclear power. Not necessarily, but you're positing a world in which the widescale adoption of nuclear power has no effects at all, and I think that's an unreasonable assumption. Right now we don't see it as a big deal to restrict nuclear exports because we see nuclear as some dangerous fringe technology rather than as the default energy source for a 21st century civilization.
        godelski 5y ago
        > you're positing a world in which the widescale adoption of nuclear power has no effects at all No I'm not. I'm saying that if the US went highly nuclear that it does not directly follow that the rest of the world would also. I'm saying it is a bad assumption to make. > Right now we don't see it as a big deal to restrict nuclear exports It still is a big deal, but it was even a bigger deal 20-30 years ago (the timeframe we are talking about). As a good example, less than 10 years ago I was working on a project that involved nuclear technologies and a university partner. I was not allowed to talk specifics to any of the international students that were _directly_ working on the project (you bet they were smart enough to figure out what they were making). While nothing was classified, it still fell under ITAR and the FBI was talking to me several times a year. Nuclear technology exports are still a very big deal.

neaanopri 5y ago

US also influences policy adopted by other countries, so if the US adopted the French nuclear model, we would influence other countries. I think we're hurt by our domestic oil and gas reserves here. We have powerful interests who want the US to use its domestic oil and gas reserves, so a large-scale shift TO nuclear and AWAY FROM gas seems quite difficult to execute.

godelski 5y ago
This is quite limited though and is why I talked about also including Europe. The limitation is that the US isn't going to let developing nations have nuclear power or they'll limit it, a la Iran Deal. The technology isn't really being exported, so that influence wouldn't be exactly global. Just to rich trading partners (i.e. the west, Japan, and Korea).
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  > The technology isn't really being exported, so that influence wouldn't be exactly global. China has started exporting their Hualong One reactor with at least two Pakistani Nuclear Power Stations building a total of 5 Hualong One reactors: Karachi and Chashma. Argentina is expected to start building a Hualong One reactor by next year and it is under consideration in the United Kingdom. > Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though there are major plans for new units in Russia. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-an... > China is planning at least 150 new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli... If it goes anything like their buildout of high speed railway China would probably end up doubling the reactor capacity built by 2035 over this plan.
  - spfzero 5y ago
    The article mentions Turkey as well, using Russian tech. When a NATO country chooses nuclear tech from the country that brought us Chernobyl, the US is definitely asleep at the wheel.