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

  • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Massively subsidized and where do you put all the nuclear waste? Nuclear energy is dumb even without thinking about possible disasters. You are just falling for grifters who don’t want us to use renewable sources of energy. And before you say it: no, nuclear energy is not green. You would know that if you actually googled for like 5 seconds, but it’s easier to believe grifters promising “the one easy solution to solve all our problems”, right?

    • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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.

      • Welt@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

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

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      you put the nuclear waste in a hole, deep underground, after burning most of it up. Modern gen 4 designs can burn the vast majority of existing waste products down to a much more reasonable time span.

      Nuclear energy is vastly more green than, coal, gas, petro, etc… Currently arguably more sustainable than massive amounts of solar and wind energy. Wind in particular has a massive waste issue, solar, it’s more complicated but there are a lot of precious metals involved and heavy refining done. It’s not a zero emissions industry either. The actual production of electricity IS net zero, unlike coal, petro, and gas, which still powers the majority of our grids. Please continue to explain to me how fossil fuels are better than funny green rock.

      You’re also accusing me of knowing nothing about nuclear, which is funny, considering i have quite the autistic hyper-fixation on it. And know vastly more about it than the average person. Judging by your response, you’re probably not in the field of nuclear energy either.

      Nuclear is a technology we know how to build, understand how to operate safely, and are capable of doing correctly. The only thing we need, is more nuclear plants.