this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
85 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

58719 readers
4749 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

My impression is that this is a PR push, designed to avoid having to invest in renewables, and let them keep on burning gas and coal, rather than something likely to come to fruition.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Is “AI” (ie, large language modeling, also known as enhanced word prediction; and with no logical reasoning ability) really so important that this infrastructure needs to be built?

For the love of the gods, let this bubble burst already!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 20 hours ago

Let them build green energy before it bursts... although, as another user pointed out, this may be the usual money grab and nothing gets built in the end.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Conveniently, the heat from all this power being generated and subsequently used in the data centres doesn't count as emmissions. Twats.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 21 hours ago

Fairly so - it isn't emissions, and does not contribute to the problem in a meaningful way.

The reason why emissions are dangerous is because they trap solar heat at large enough scales to change the global climate. Server farm heating isn't really anywhere near contributing at that scale.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Honestly, I know this is a polarizing issue, but nuclear is clean and pretty much safe and you don't need batteries for it. Lithium batteries of course being an ecological nightmare. Bring it on I say.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 20 hours ago

Bring it on I say.

As long as regulation stays in place. Or, better, add even harder regulation (for from security standpoints as well as fiscal) to ensure these fuckers are forced to be actively responsible for the safety and give them no way to back off and abandon a plant.

Let them donate excess power to the grid as well. Eh, fund housing nearby for the homeless.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Mining for nuclear is an ecological disaster, and is often done in poor countries under awful conditions, especially lung cancer due to the radon emissions of uranium.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 21 hours ago

Arguably it is better than mining for coal, lithium, etc. since those have similar issues, but one gram of uranium contains energy similar to 3 tons of coal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago

Try Thorium.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Mostly:

  • New nuclear is really expensive
  • It also takes a long time to deliver
  • The new reactor examples in here consist of reactors from suppliers who haven't done that before

So it has the feel of a plan to promise to spend a lot of money several years from now, and get a lot of PR points today, and quietly cancel the project later.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It also takes a long time to deliver

Not that much. Do remember there's a lot of oil money pouring into FUDing about nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

They're talking about 5+ years on the new nuclear in these. And they haven't done it before, so a 30% deadline slip is realistic.

You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

Which needs a stable baseline to counteract lack of supply and/or a lot of lithium. And space.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

The existing large-scale batteries are largely lithium. There are a bunch of iron-chemistry ones and sodium-ion ones which have been deployed over the past year, with factories going up to scale them up. I'm not expecting to be limited by lithium availability for stationary batteries.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Well that is, indeed, wack. I appreciate your perspective, I can't believe I missed the "corporations lying for money" angle. I'm usually on top of it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In 10 years they'll be swimming in waste with no permanent storage facilities in existence, a little will leak due to cist cutting, and they'll let those shell companies go bankrupt to avoid ever having to deal with it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago

In 10 years they’ll be swimming in waste

Stop FUDing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

Investing billions

Weren't the headlines a week or two ago about Microsoft trying to get taxpayer funded aid for reopening 3-mile Island? Companies shouldn't be asking for taxpayer funded handouts when they are basically printing money at this point.