“There’s no way to get there without a breakthrough,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, arguing that AI will soon need even more energy.
“There’s no way to get there without a breakthrough,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, arguing that AI will soon need even more energy.
It’s called nuclear energy. It was discovered in 1932 and properly harnessed with an effective reactor that consumes both radioactive material and waste (CANDU) in 1950’s/1960’s and the newest CANDU reactors are some of the safest and most efficient energy generation in the world.
Pretending like there needs to be a larger investment into something like cold fusion in order to run these computers is incredibly dishonest or presenting a clear hole in education coverage. (The DoE should still work on researching cold fusion, but not because of this.)
I love nuclear but China is building them as fast as they can and they’re still being massively outpaced by their own solar installations. If we hadn’t shut down most of the research and construction in the 80’s it would have been great, but it’s not going to be a solution to the huge power requirement growth from EVs and shit like AI in the “short” term of 1-20 years.
It’s important to keep in context who is building them, how they’re being built, and with what oversight they are built.
We are in no way perfect in the west but we are easily a century ahead in insuring build quality and regulatory oversight.
Solar alone can’t meet humanity’s energy needs without breakthroughs in energy storage.
Most energy we use the grid for is generated on demand. That means only a few moments ago, the electricity powering your computer was just a lump of coal in a furnace.
If we don’t have the means to store enough energy to meet demands when the sun isn’t out or wind isn’t blowing, then we need more sources of energy than just sun and wind.
There is a lot of misinformation being perpetuated by the solar industry to fool people like you into thinking all investments should be directed to it over other options.
Please educate yourself before parroting industry talking points that only exist to take people for a ride.
There is growing scientific consensus that 100% renewables is the most cost effective option.
Grid storage doesn’t have the same weight limitations that EVs do, which opens up a lot more paths. Flow batteries, for one, might be all we need. They’re already gearing those up for mass production, so we don’t need any further breakthroughs (though they’re always nice if they come).
Getting to 95% is surprisingly easy; there are non-linear factors at work to getting that last 5%, but you wouldn’t need to use other sources very much at all. The wind often blows when the sun doesn’t shine. We have tons of historical weather data about how these two combine in a given region, which means we can calculate the maximum expected lull between the two. Double that amount and put in enough storage to cover it. This basic plan was simulated in Australia, and it gets there for an affordable cost.
Then we can worry about that last 5%.
Nuclear advocates have been using the same talking points since the 90s, and have missed how the economics have been swept out from underneath them.
Supplying energy isn’t only doing what’s “cost effective.” It’s about meeting demand.
This is why when suppliers have difficulty meeting demand, prices go up.
If we only did what was the cheapest instead of what was required to meet demand, then our demands wouldn’t be met and we would be without energy during those times.
Check the second link again. They were calculating how demand was met over time.
In Australia a mostly open, sparsely populated, continent sized island with vast amounts of sun wind and hydro, with people mostly gathered in a small band of the coast on one side (and still even then needed 1/3 of total generating capacity backed by fossil fuels).
It’s great that oz can maybe get away with almost entirely renewable (maybe, that simulation is essentially just multiplying current generation by a large number, adding some storage and saying that mostly takes generation above demand, it doesn’t do any sort of analysis of when where or how that energy is generated or makes its way to the sources of demand), but it’s not a model for the rest of the world.
Yeah, nuclear has been available and in use over the period of the sharpest increase in co2 emissions. It’s not responsible for it, but it’s not the answer. The average person can’t harness nuclear energy. But all the renewable energies in the world can fit on a small house: wind, solar, hydro. Why bring radioactive materials into this?
We have a system to distribute electricity
But why continue to rely on a system of profit that is being run like a mob, being split into distinct territories where “free market capitalism” can’t even allow us to not get gouged by profit seekers? Why not generate our own power? Why not 100% renewables? Like I said, why bring radioactive materials into this? For that matter, why bring capitalism into it?
My comment was referring to when you mentioned the average person not being able to harvest nuclear energy as an argument against it.
I’m 100% for broad solar adaptation and even laws forcing new homes to be built with them. The other renewables you mention aren’t harvestable by the average person either sadly.
I think nuclear is an important tool for running clean societies. Industries need a lot of power and I can also see mini reactors being bought by small towns for their citizens. It has its uses when the renewables aren’t pheasible but the best is always solar or wind farms and hydro for sure.
Microsoft is actually looking at dedicated SMRs to run AI server farms, but could we fucking not?