5 ms·
> The reason we didn't use [Nuclear Fission] to prevent Climate Change is 90% political, not technical Eh. The physics and proliferation risk are pretty intert
by ethbr0 5y ago
> The reason we didn't use [Nuclear Fission] to prevent Climate Change is 90% political, not technical
Eh. The physics and proliferation risk are pretty intertwined.
Who's to say we would have been better off with greater historical nuclear weapon proliferation risk but lower climate risk?
We know the path we chose, limited global use of fission power, mostly avoided nuclear weapons proliferation, and did avoid nuclear exchanges. So it's provably a successful (or probably successful) path. Whether an alternative would have gotten the same outcome?
- monkeywork 5y ago>We know the path we chose, limited global use of fission power, mostly avoided nuclear weapons proliferation, and did avoid nuclear exchanges. So it's provably a successful (or probably successful) path. Only if you value the lack of nuclear exchanges over the impacts of climate change. Which one of the two is more likely to cause a mass extinction type issue on the planet, one puts the control in the hands of people and the other the forces of nature.
- ethbr0 5y agoI'd say I do. Climate change is colossal in problem magnitude, but temporally slow and distributed in impact. Nuclear weapons are terrifying fast and centralized in impact. Unfortunately, our civilization is also mostly centralized. Cities, ports, highly productive land : total land area. If you're talking persistent radioactive effects for a decade+, it doesn't take many to severely cripple the world. As an example, a 100kt weapon (or smaller dirty) could knock a port out of action. Now look at a list of ports [0] and imagine what would happen if one or more of them dropped off the global trade grid for multiple years. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_ports https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_po...
- qwytw 5y agoHow would the increase in the number of nuclear power plants lead to more nuclear weapons? There is no direct connection besides edge cases like Iran using it as a cover to develop nuclear weapons.
- ethbr0 5y agoSomeone please correct me if I'm speaking inaccurately, but early reactor design (1950s/60s/70s) focused on light water reactors, which meant enriched U-235 fuel (@ ~3%?). By design, these reactors also convert a portion of their U-238 to P-239, only some of which is then consumed in the reactor. Consequently, for widespread nuclear reactors (read: in many countries), you also had widespread proliferation of lightly enriched uranium (in the fuel) and proliferation of plutonium (produced in the fuel as the reactor runs). Both of these remove the most time and energy consuming step (low level enrichment) as an obstacle to state nuclear weapons development. And they're fundamental to the way light water reactor technology works, especially with the limitations of the period. So the only way you could have had proliferation-resistance would have been to have some sort of global fuel-control and -custody agreement (presumably run by the United States, USSR, and maybe France, depending on the time period). Which sovereign countries would have likely felt some kind of way about.
- qwytw 5y agoThe number of new nuclear reactors only stopped growing in the 80's. In any case I don't think access to material is the limiting factor in nuclear proliferation. If we're talking about the US and USSR, it's completely irrelevant, even if they had 100x more reactors since they already have more than enough bombs to more or less to blow up the entire world. Other western countries either have enough nukes already or don't need or want them and I don't see why would they export technology or material to countries which are hostile to them. It's not obvious to me that having more nuclear reactors in the US, Britain or Germany would had made it significantly easier for rogue states like Iraq, Iran or North Korea to developed nuclear weapons.