this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
665 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59357 readers
4279 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn't replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that...cool
The other side of the coin is that AI currently uses more power than is produced by all renewables across the globe annually. So at least they'll be offsetting that, which would be a net positive.
And it seems like Google's funding will help advance safer and more modern nuclear plant designs, which is another win that could lead to replacing coal plants in many countries with small scale reactors that don't run on uranium.
Hopefully.
But the cynic in me is always concerned when shareholder owned companies are operating something that has the potential to go very wrong very quickly if/when they cut too many corners in the pursuit of that extra 0.5% of profit.
For what it's worth, many, maybe most (sorry, can't be bothered to look up the stats right now) nuclear plants in the US are already owned by some publicly traded company beholden to its shareholders who expect it to turn an ever increasing profit for them.
Not that it gives me the warm-fuzzies that that's the case, but it's not quite as big of a departure from the current situation as you're making it out to be.
Not familiar with the current US situation, but AFAIK, in my country the governments have a stake in the operation and maintenance of nuclear facilities.
Yes it's obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody's arguing that. What I'm talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.
No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It's not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that's just one of the problems. It's the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).
It's also that Google could have been taxed more(I'm sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.
It's almost like our population has continued to increase for the last 30 years
It's almost like you have no clue what you are talking about lol. The global population growth for the last 30 years is 50%, while the global GDP growth is 500%. Not only that but the wealth inequality in the world has been steadily rising for the last 60 years. In the US alone (that we have data on) the wealth of the bottom 80% has been roughly stagnant since the 1990s while that of the top 1% has skyrocketed - it's basically them that have absorbed this economic growth profit.
So yeah, you got a lot of confidence in things you clearly don't know about.
You weren't talking about wealth, you said that our energy consumption continued to rise.
You have to understand that GDP and energy demands are intrinsically tied. That's a fact, both theoretically and empirically verified with historical data. When the GDP rises, energy demands rise. And the reason why energy demands rise is not to meet people's needs but because the 1% seek to increase GDP (through individual corporation stock values) which in turn increases their profits, since like I said they absorb all of it. That is why it is relevant, because it's a matter of wealth accumulation by the 1%, not because people need more energy. That is backed both by the fact that the common people don't get anything out of the increase in economic production(the bottom 80% like I've said have had a stagnant wealth since the 1990s in the US, although the global GDP has risen 5-fold, even though the population has risen and hence the people in that 80% has risen as well) and by the fact that the population increase has been just 50% and the increase in wealth ten times that.
So our population has increased by 50% and you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease? All countries have increased energy production, including China, I'm not sure why you're making this sound like a US centric problem.
What in the world do you mean "you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease?". What does expect mean??? I don't expect anything, I'm stating what needs to be done if we want our planet to remain habitable...have you heard about climate change or...? Also how do you keep ignoring the fact that our wealth has increased by 500% in the last 30 years and the 1% gets all the profit? We don't need to increase our economic activities for all the people to be able to live comfortably, we need distribute wealth fairly and when we get to a point where everyone can live well, (in the West we are way past that point) then we need to scale down unnecessary economic activities, if we want to meet the scientific guidelines to avoid the 3 degrees by the end of the century, which would spell absolute irreversible disaster.
I never said it's a US problem, and I didn't make it sound like so, I was only using some data from the US for convenience. It's a worldwide problem, but the US dictates the trajectory and policies of a very big part of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and the gulf countries, all of which are essentially controlled by them. Also the US has by far the most CO2 emissions historically, making that country the single biggest contributor to climate change, again, by far. So it bears the biggest responsibility of any country. But you are right, it's a worldwide problem.