News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:China to supercharge uranium race with 150 new nuclear re... by throwaway894345 on Monday November 08, 2021 @04:20PM (#29154431)
You might be right on the minor local point that we would still have a climate problem if the US went all-in on nuclear, but it would be a lot easier to get the US to pass border adjustments (“carbon tariffs” if you will) on China or whomever if our emissions were in good shape. We wouldn’t have a fossil fuel industry lobbying hard to preserve pollution and there wouldn’t be as much pearl clutching about the effects of the economy. Moreover, if we had 70 years of investment in nuclear, we would probably be able to quickly and cheaply stamp out safe, cost effective nuclear power plants all over the world (think about how much progress on SMRs could have been made in the same amount of time). Moreover, abundant, cheap energy would have almost certainly precipitated the electrification of everything from heavy industry to transportation to indoor heating/cooking/water-heating/etc (on the near-certain assumption that nuclear would be far cheaper than fossil fuels).
Re:China to supercharge uranium race with 150 new nuclear re... by godelski on Monday November 08, 2021 @04:59PM (#29154796)
Well the whole reason we don't have nuclear is because of the fossil fuel industry lobbying. So I'm not sure we can really make these conclusions. It is post hoc thinking. As much as I'd love to live in an atomic punk era with SMRs being prolific. Luckily there's been a lot of investment lately into them and we're starting to see good results. So it isn't too late.
Re:China to supercharge uranium race with 150 new nuclear re... by throwaway894345 on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @10:19AM (#29162844)
> Well the whole reason we don't have nuclear is because of the fossil fuel industry lobbying. So I'm not sure we can really make these conclusions. It is post hoc thinking.

I think you misunderstood (or maybe I'm misunderstanding). I agree that "the whole reason we don't have nuclear is because of the fossil fuel industry lobbying", but I don't see how that invalidates any conclusions.

> Luckily there's been a lot of investment lately into them and we're starting to see good results. So it isn't too late.

Well, it's certainly too late to help us meet Paris Climate Agreement targets, which largely depend on our emission rates b the end of the decade (there's no way we're going to start cranking out enough SMRs to put a serious dent in emissions because we started reinvesting in nuclear too little too late). SMRs might play a role several decades out, but it's too late for the short term (and of course the short term is going to have a lot of ramifications for our future climate).