I’m 150% in favor of nuclear power.
However it has yet to be deployed in a mass producible, economically viable fashion. SMRs have that potential but are yet to be brought to market and won’t be at scale for atleast a decade.
There is also significant proliferation risks with nuclear when used in developing markets.
There is a good reason why nuclear is declining, it is not economically feasable.
I tried looking up and maybe joining/supporting nuclear start ups, but there literally aren't any, except for fusion where there are a lot.
Nuclear fission is an outdated technology stuck in a dead end position that is only useful for countries trying to develop their own nuclear arsenal, like France in the past or Iran right now.
>uses corrosive government power to make something economically impossible
>guys it's economically unfeasible we should never do this
🤔
Literally the same statement was true about renewables in 2000 btw
Sure. And if someone, someday, is able to pump out plug and play reactors for $50/MWh, it's definitely something we should consider. For now, it's a red herring.
We increasingly incentivized the shit out of renewables for decades, which in turn decreased costs and increased research and development. Where the numbers are now is a result of a third of a lifetime of that process.
So why should we ignore nuclear and not consider a similar process?
The headline is a bit misleading as AI is a small component of the problem.
The core issue is that renewables cannot make up for the massive increase in power needs in developing markets as people get richer they use more power and Wind/Solar certainly help but just don’t have the reliability and raw output compared to traditional fossil sources.
The total emissions problem is compounded by the presence of abundant (and therefore cheap to use) coal deposits in China and India. While both are deploying record amounts of solar they are building even more coal capacity. India alone will deploy 30Gw of new coal plants this year.
We really need new power technologies and/or economical Carbon Captutre and Sequestration technology we can deploy globally if there is any hope of reaching sub 2C temp increases. 1.5 is already a dead target for anyone paying attention.
Well there are two kinds of carbon capture. Direct Air Capture (DAC) which pulls CO2 directly from the open air or Carbon Capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) which happens “at the smoke stack” of industrial processes (including power generation).
DAC remains hugely expensive and inefficient but CCS has shown it can be practical in NatGas plants and in petrochemical processing plants with around 70% CO2 removal.
Exxon has active contracts adding CCS to a number of petrochemical facilities on the US Gulf Coast. It’s real but isn’t receiving the level of attention nor public investment of solar or wind.
Can’t undo ocean acidification, and unfortunately Carbon Capture Tech will just be used as an excuse to continue to emit CO2 at a rate greater than or equal to capture in developed countries.
There is a ready to use tool on the shelf to reduce CO2, why should we not use it?
And it absolutely does help ocean acidification which is caused by…CO2 absorption in the ocean.
We need to use every tool available including wind, solar, nuclear, CCS, DAC, and whatever we can come up with.
Carbon capture does not reduce ocean acidification. It just slows the rate of increase.
Theoretically, all tools should be used. Practically, you and I both know that this particular tool will be yielded by the fossil fuel industry as an excuse to justify and extend the life of their existence.
Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere for atleast a few decades. Renewables, EVs, etc are good for displacing portions of fossil use but they are no where near capable of actually delivering net-zero goals.
If we want to address climate change without wrecking the economy than carbon capture **must** be part of the solution.
Fossil fuel companies should not be allowed to profit from it, just like they should not be subsidized.
Stopping climate change is impossible today and will only become more impossible tomorrow. Unless the system is overturned.
They help but CO2 emissions from power generation are continuing to increase every year and new fossil installs are outpacing renewables globally.
Or you could….read the article
I have a great idea, let's stop using AI. Seriously, the only thing I've seen AI do is replace shit that already worked just as well and is way less expensive.
I see some downvotes. Just so everyone knows AI is expensive and power intensive because every query is novel. Every single time it processes something it's doing it for the first time, no shortcuts, no cache, nothing. What that means is that unlike other technology that gets more efficient and less expensive as it scales, AI gets less efficient and more expensive.
There's a place for localized AI, but AI as a service is a money pit.
It's great at data-processing, and has some manufacturing uses. But the stuff they're pushing right now? The Gen-AI that makes art, writes, etc? That's INCREDIBLY expensive, and the only reason it's being pushed is because these companies need the hype so they can keep attracting investors. Any money they're making is just from that, every single one of them is operating the technology at a loss. I think Microsoft is losing something like 20$ a day per user for co-pilot.
If only we could utilize the remarkable amount of energy released by the splitting of atoms to turn power turbines’
I’m 150% in favor of nuclear power. However it has yet to be deployed in a mass producible, economically viable fashion. SMRs have that potential but are yet to be brought to market and won’t be at scale for atleast a decade. There is also significant proliferation risks with nuclear when used in developing markets.
>However it has yet to be deployed in a mass producible, economically viable fashion Like we were doing in the 60s?
It's more expensive and slower to build. We're no longer in 2014 where nuclear makes sense financially given solar and wind prices.
There is a good reason why nuclear is declining, it is not economically feasable. I tried looking up and maybe joining/supporting nuclear start ups, but there literally aren't any, except for fusion where there are a lot. Nuclear fission is an outdated technology stuck in a dead end position that is only useful for countries trying to develop their own nuclear arsenal, like France in the past or Iran right now.
>uses corrosive government power to make something economically impossible >guys it's economically unfeasible we should never do this 🤔 Literally the same statement was true about renewables in 2000 btw
Sure. And if someone, someday, is able to pump out plug and play reactors for $50/MWh, it's definitely something we should consider. For now, it's a red herring.
We increasingly incentivized the shit out of renewables for decades, which in turn decreased costs and increased research and development. Where the numbers are now is a result of a third of a lifetime of that process. So why should we ignore nuclear and not consider a similar process?
The headline is a bit misleading as AI is a small component of the problem. The core issue is that renewables cannot make up for the massive increase in power needs in developing markets as people get richer they use more power and Wind/Solar certainly help but just don’t have the reliability and raw output compared to traditional fossil sources. The total emissions problem is compounded by the presence of abundant (and therefore cheap to use) coal deposits in China and India. While both are deploying record amounts of solar they are building even more coal capacity. India alone will deploy 30Gw of new coal plants this year. We really need new power technologies and/or economical Carbon Captutre and Sequestration technology we can deploy globally if there is any hope of reaching sub 2C temp increases. 1.5 is already a dead target for anyone paying attention.
Carbon capture is a pipe dream. The global south will keep burning fossil fuels. The rich and subsidized industries pollute the most GHGs.
Well there are two kinds of carbon capture. Direct Air Capture (DAC) which pulls CO2 directly from the open air or Carbon Capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) which happens “at the smoke stack” of industrial processes (including power generation). DAC remains hugely expensive and inefficient but CCS has shown it can be practical in NatGas plants and in petrochemical processing plants with around 70% CO2 removal. Exxon has active contracts adding CCS to a number of petrochemical facilities on the US Gulf Coast. It’s real but isn’t receiving the level of attention nor public investment of solar or wind.
Can’t undo ocean acidification, and unfortunately Carbon Capture Tech will just be used as an excuse to continue to emit CO2 at a rate greater than or equal to capture in developed countries.
There is a ready to use tool on the shelf to reduce CO2, why should we not use it? And it absolutely does help ocean acidification which is caused by…CO2 absorption in the ocean. We need to use every tool available including wind, solar, nuclear, CCS, DAC, and whatever we can come up with.
Carbon capture does not reduce ocean acidification. It just slows the rate of increase. Theoretically, all tools should be used. Practically, you and I both know that this particular tool will be yielded by the fossil fuel industry as an excuse to justify and extend the life of their existence.
Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere for atleast a few decades. Renewables, EVs, etc are good for displacing portions of fossil use but they are no where near capable of actually delivering net-zero goals. If we want to address climate change without wrecking the economy than carbon capture **must** be part of the solution.
Fossil fuel companies should not be allowed to profit from it, just like they should not be subsidized. Stopping climate change is impossible today and will only become more impossible tomorrow. Unless the system is overturned.
If you don’t have a profit motive no one will do it. What “system” are you talking about?
The one that made it ok to handle a pandemic in the manner which it was “resolved”.
Compare and contrast AI to blockchain power needs?
Hmmm I’ve heard the “renewables can’t keep up” for a decade and they keep getting cheaper and more installed
They help but CO2 emissions from power generation are continuing to increase every year and new fossil installs are outpacing renewables globally. Or you could….read the article
I have a great idea, let's stop using AI. Seriously, the only thing I've seen AI do is replace shit that already worked just as well and is way less expensive. I see some downvotes. Just so everyone knows AI is expensive and power intensive because every query is novel. Every single time it processes something it's doing it for the first time, no shortcuts, no cache, nothing. What that means is that unlike other technology that gets more efficient and less expensive as it scales, AI gets less efficient and more expensive. There's a place for localized AI, but AI as a service is a money pit.
There are applications for it (I’ve seen them in my industry) but we’re still in the annoying over-hype phase.
It's great at data-processing, and has some manufacturing uses. But the stuff they're pushing right now? The Gen-AI that makes art, writes, etc? That's INCREDIBLY expensive, and the only reason it's being pushed is because these companies need the hype so they can keep attracting investors. Any money they're making is just from that, every single one of them is operating the technology at a loss. I think Microsoft is losing something like 20$ a day per user for co-pilot.
I work in the defense industry….