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

  • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    yes, but extremely toxic and radioactive waste tho.

    thorium could be an option

    fusion could be an option

    or… ya know, we just continue expanding solar and wind energy until we have one of the above.

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yeah, no reason to ever think of alternate options. Just push one or two things until they magically work for everything somehow.

    • MagneticFusion@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      solar and wind are great but the fact of the matter is they are unreliable. Nuclear is the perfect option. EVEN if the current form of nuclear is not an ideal solution, it is better than using fossil fuels until we fund thorium and fusion enough for it to become viable.

      • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        for sure, but nuclear fission like we are doing it right now is definetely not sustainable. we can do it for like a hundred more years, then the waste really starts piling up.

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Thorium fuel cycle is nearly the same as the uranium fuel cycle in regards to downsides. It just requires breeders, which you could use with uranium too. The only real benefit of thorium is that it’s more plentiful, but the cost in nuclear power isn’t in Uranium.

    • BarbecueCowboy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Toxic/Radioactive waste is obviously toxic and radioactive, but how bad that really is is kind of overblown especially if you compare it to the harm caused by popular existing methods like coal/etc. When adjusted based on energy produced, there’s more than one study out there showing how Nuclear is significantly safer than coal by a very wide margin. Coal ash is also radioactive and coal plants have very limited requirements to prevent it from escaping to the environment.

      Even ‘Radioactive Waste’ really only feels scary because all of the bad stuff is condensed into a much smaller package when you adjust based on energy produced again.

      • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        yes, absolutely. we germans should’ve shut down coal plants first. but there’s no point in reactivating the nuclear power plants, especially because we are literally producing more power than we can use. 60% of which is renewables. some providers will give you energy for basically free, as long as you use it at night when everything shuts down.