5 ms·

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. Chi

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.
        philwelch 5y ago
        > 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 agree that it does not directly or necessarily follow. But I think it would be more likely. > Nuclear technology exports are still a very big deal. Sorry, I think my comment came across the exact opposite of what I meant. When I said "we don't see it as a big deal to restrict nuclear exports", what I meant was, when we restrict the export of nuclear technology, we don't see it as an unfair imposition on other countries to deprive them of nuclear energy the same way we might see depriving them of food or natural gas. In other words, exporting nuclear technology is a big deal; depriving the rest of the world of nuclear energy is not a big deal. Sorry for the confusing phrasing. Right now, American voters and policymakers don't think of nuclear energy as the primary power source for a modern civilization. When we have those annoying ITAR regulations that you had to follow, everybody thinks that's perfectly reasonable because nuclear technology is spooky and scary mad science that nobody actually needs anyway. That's not the same attitude we would have if we switched to wholesale nuclear energy in the 1970's. Am I saying export laws would necessarily be less stringent in this scenario? No, but there are probabilities between 0 and 1, and you seem to be implying that since the probability is <1, it must be 0.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  So you're saying this wouldn't have helped because only the industrialized countries would be using nuclear and that would still leave the industrializing countries using carbon? And this is a point worth quibbling over, since they produce hardly any of the carbon? If so, you're wrong, climate change would indeed be a minor issue if this had happened.
  - godelski 5y ago
    Honestly I feel like you're trying to pigeonhole me and ignoring major parts of my comments.
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  The EU and India/Asia would go a long ways toward solving the carbon pollution problem. Where we don't sell the reactors, then we'd sell the power using underwater HVDC cables (i.e. to Central and South America).

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.
      - philwelch 5y ago
        > 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 agree that it does not directly or necessarily follow. But I think it would be more likely. > Nuclear technology exports are still a very big deal. Sorry, I think my comment came across the exact opposite of what I meant. When I said "we don't see it as a big deal to restrict nuclear exports", what I meant was, when we restrict the export of nuclear technology, we don't see it as an unfair imposition on other countries to deprive them of nuclear energy the same way we might see depriving them of food or natural gas. In other words, exporting nuclear technology is a big deal; depriving the rest of the world of nuclear energy is not a big deal. Sorry for the confusing phrasing. Right now, American voters and policymakers don't think of nuclear energy as the primary power source for a modern civilization. When we have those annoying ITAR regulations that you had to follow, everybody thinks that's perfectly reasonable because nuclear technology is spooky and scary mad science that nobody actually needs anyway. That's not the same attitude we would have if we switched to wholesale nuclear energy in the 1970's. Am I saying export laws would necessarily be less stringent in this scenario? No, but there are probabilities between 0 and 1, and you seem to be implying that since the probability is <1, it must be 0.
merpnderp 5y ago
So you're saying this wouldn't have helped because only the industrialized countries would be using nuclear and that would still leave the industrializing countries using carbon? And this is a point worth quibbling over, since they produce hardly any of the carbon? If so, you're wrong, climate change would indeed be a minor issue if this had happened.
- godelski 5y ago
  Honestly I feel like you're trying to pigeonhole me and ignoring major parts of my comments.
arrosenberg 5y ago
The EU and India/Asia would go a long ways toward solving the carbon pollution problem. Where we don't sell the reactors, then we'd sell the power using underwater HVDC cables (i.e. to Central and South America).