3 ms·

Decades of environmentalist opposition to nuclear power and (in the anglosphere) dense housing is still the #1 cause of carbon emissions :D

vouaobrasil 3y ago
While oppposing nuclear power can certainly cause more CO2 emissions, I doubt it's #1. I would like to see an analysis of how much CO2 emissions could be reduced if 30 years ago there were, say, 500 more nuclear power plants than now. What about cars and trucks? According to the EPA.gov website, transportation is still the #1 cause of greenhouse gases.
- Ericson2314 3y ago
  Rail of various sorts fixed the transit problem. If we had abandoned our suburban failed experiment the same time nuclear was built out, I fully believe cars would die a natural death as all the gasoline infrastructure would cease to be profitable. So basically it is a combination of no nuclear power + severe restrictions on density (zoning most famously, but also two-track building codes) that prevented this "natural solution". I put nuclear first because it is much more global, while the problems of suburbs + NIMBYism is most pronounced in American. (Still a problem elsewhere but never quite as bad.)
  - wombatpm 3y ago
    Instead, we abandoned many rails lines. Just ion my area of the Midwest there are two lines that were unused in the 70-80's. In the 90's they were converted to bike trails. Now the rail companies wish they had those rights-of-way's back to relieve rail congestion in the area.
- twobitshifter 3y ago
  It’s 25 vs. 28 for transportation, but abundant nuclear could have made commercial and residential heating all electric or through district hot water heating, which is 13%. On transportation, I’m reminded of old popular science mags where the cars were predicted to have mini reactors in the trunk. obviously with 1970s tech that’s much too dangerous to be viable, but maybe we would have developed nuclear batteries over time to skip over our porches with EV batteries.
lancesells 3y ago
In the US it looks like electricity production (25%) is a little less than transportation (28%). Commercial and residential show as 13%. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

vouaobrasil 3y ago

While oppposing nuclear power can certainly cause more CO2 emissions, I doubt it's #1. I would like to see an analysis of how much CO2 emissions could be reduced if 30 years ago there were, say, 500 more nuclear power plants than now. What about cars and trucks? According to the EPA.gov website, transportation is still the #1 cause of greenhouse gases.

Ericson2314 3y ago
Rail of various sorts fixed the transit problem. If we had abandoned our suburban failed experiment the same time nuclear was built out, I fully believe cars would die a natural death as all the gasoline infrastructure would cease to be profitable. So basically it is a combination of no nuclear power + severe restrictions on density (zoning most famously, but also two-track building codes) that prevented this "natural solution". I put nuclear first because it is much more global, while the problems of suburbs + NIMBYism is most pronounced in American. (Still a problem elsewhere but never quite as bad.)
- wombatpm 3y ago
  Instead, we abandoned many rails lines. Just ion my area of the Midwest there are two lines that were unused in the 70-80's. In the 90's they were converted to bike trails. Now the rail companies wish they had those rights-of-way's back to relieve rail congestion in the area.
twobitshifter 3y ago
It’s 25 vs. 28 for transportation, but abundant nuclear could have made commercial and residential heating all electric or through district hot water heating, which is 13%. On transportation, I’m reminded of old popular science mags where the cars were predicted to have mini reactors in the trunk. obviously with 1970s tech that’s much too dangerous to be viable, but maybe we would have developed nuclear batteries over time to skip over our porches with EV batteries.

lancesells 3y ago

In the US it looks like electricity production (25%) is a little less than transportation (28%). Commercial and residential show as 13%. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...