“There’s no way to get there without a breakthrough,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, arguing that AI will soon need even more energy.

  • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Massively subsidized

    Nuclear energy is four times cheaper than renewables when externalities like baseline generation are imputed: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035?via%3Dihub

    where do you put all the nuclear waste?

    While more dangerous, the quantity of waste generated compared to all other forms of energy generation is very small. Storage is a solved problem, but you have probably read articles about a lack of storage in the U.S. This is entirely due to politicians’ failure to agree on where to store waste. Despite the relative safety, no one wants nuclear waste stored in their “back yard.”

    And before you say it: no, nuclear energy is not green.

    Nuclear energy generates zero CO2. Surely we can agree that this is the most pressing consideration in terms of climate change. If your concern is the nuclear waste, then I direct you to the growing problem of disposing of solar cells and wind turbines. Newer turbine blades, for example, are 40 meters long and weigh 2.5 tons. These cannot be recycled.

    No matter how you cut the data, nuclear is an order of magnitude better than almost all other forms of energy generation. If our goal is to radically improve our environmental footprint while keeping the lights on even at night when it’s not windy, then nuclear absolutely must be part of the mix.

      • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Unfortunately he does only know how to misrepresent shit. This is of course all bullshit, and at best outdated information that does not take the massively falling price of renewable energy into account. Nuclear can be a transition helper, IF and only IF you already have running reactors.

        • max@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          We could’ve had those reactors if people didn’t say the same things you’re saying 30 years ago.

    • Welt@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Let’s talk about the technology instead of the dumb word “nuclear”. Thorium fission > uranium fission.

      • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        If we look at just Europe, Slovakia, Finland, and Belarus all brought new reactors online last year alone. There are another six reactors currently under construction, and another 33 planned. France and Sweden recently announced their strategic commitment to nuclear power for a variety of reasons.

        One major technological breakthrough is Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These are far more cost effective, very safe (the reactor shuts down in the event of loss of power and coolant), and require a much smaller footprint. Rolls-Royce is on target to deliver the first of these in 2030.

        The example you provide is an example of poor governance, not an inherent limitation of the technology. There are also examples of poor governance regarding renewable energy all over the world.

    • sizzler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Wierd spin you put on all of that. Burn the solar panels and blades. Reclaim the energy in heat and its still way safer than nuclear waste.