Comment on Microsoft Needs So Much Power to Train AI That It's Considering Small Nuclear Reactors

• threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Yeah, there’s very little information in the article on what type of reactor they plan to use, but I hope they’re able to go with something like a molten salt reactor with the thorium fuel cycle.

  source

  • scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Getting half a dozen of those built and in use would be exactly the kind of thing that tech billionaires are actually good for.

    source

    • prole@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Fuck that. Take all the government grants and subsidies that would surely exist, and then use it for their own good/profit/power hoarding? No thanks.

      Putting billionaires in control of our nuclear power infrastructure after “building” them with mostly taxpayer money, when it’s all said and done, is an absolutely bone chilling thought. Terrifying.

      source

      • scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I don’t know why you think government subsidies exist - so impoverished single moms can build power plants? No. They’re pork for billionaires by design, to get them off their asses and steer them into directions we want to go. Like venture capital, they are also high risk. Our federal budget can support some level of this and it’s frankly needed to drive change in new or stalled industries where the motive for immediate profit isn’t strong enough to overcome the cold start problem. If your hatred of billionaires keeps you from making smart energy choices to address climate change, then your priorities are wrong.

        source
  • bemenaker@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The picture they show is from terrapower, the company Bill Gates funded, which is a thorium reactor. Thorium liquid salt reactors are still difficult because of the metallurgy. I believe they were supposed to fit the small modular concept though.

    source
• MonkderZweite@feddit.ch ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Hm… risk of nuclear disaster? Or more expense? Hm… I’ll have to think about this one.

    source

    • PlexSheep@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Your logic is fallacious: the solution is not to build a nuclear reactor but seek an alternative.

      source

      • scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yes I understand. It was a cheeky reply. But alternatives are actually limited if you consider all the benefits of nuclear: high energy output, limited land use, no dependence on weather or time of day, no massive subsidy to Chinese manufacturing, no carbon, all resources mineable in the US, waste all physically contained…

        Got alternatives to that?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Anamana@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Hm… invest into your companies cybersecurity before or after you get hacked?

      Companies don’t care enough about risks if they are not forced to comply.

      source