Comment on US slows plans to retire coal plants because of AI power usage

stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  No.

  source

  • stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Ok, then let’s boil the planet despite having safe and working alternatives.

    source

    • Vash63@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      The problem isn’t function or safety, it’s cost. It isn’t cost effective to build or renovate a nuclear plant compared to wind or solar. If you have one in good condition, it makes sense to let it run its lifetime, but it makes little sense to build new.

      source

      • Miaou@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Well it’s probably cheaper to keep coal plants running, if money is the metric we care about.

        source
      • stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Standardization and modularity.

        Yes, the first plant would be expensive, but the cost would drasticly go down once production gets under way.

        Make the plant design modular as well, so if the plant it built next to water, it can use the water to discharge heat, and not need cooling towers.

        This isn’t a huge problem.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • bobtimus_prime@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      As long we don’t have a way to deal with the nuclear waste, nuclear is not safe.

      And even if we had a way to deal with this, Mining, preprocessing, building the reactor, running the reactor and treating the waste has to be cheaper than renewabls, which I doubt.

      Last, but not least, building such powerplants takes years, if not decades, to build, which we do have. At the current rate of emission, we have less than 6 years left before we miss the 1.5°C target[1], which is way to short for any nuclear facility.

      [1] www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html

      source

      • stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Nuclear waste is a solved problem.

        Dig a deep hole, put the nuclear waste in the hole, backfill with clay.

        Solved.

        Now I understand that different places on earth have less suitable bedrock for this storage, so I voulenteer my home municipality in Sweden as a global storage site, we have stable bedrock, the technical skill and a stable government.

        As for the “we don’t have time” bullshit, I have heard that for more than ten years, it is pure bullshit, the best time to build nuclear power was ten years ago, the second best time is today.

        You can yell about solar/wind as much as you ever want, but they can’t deal with the baseload as well as nuclear or coal can, coal is buring the entire planet, nuclear MIGHT at worst create a temporary inconvenience where a relatively small area has to be closed to humans. Continued use of coal will cause far, far worse harm.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • d4f0@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Sure, for nuclear to help not reach the 1.5°C threshold it should have been built decades ago.

        For nuclear to help not reach the 2°C threshold it can be built now. But surely in a few decades it will also take too long to build.

        Right now there are new fossil fuel plants being built, I think nuclear is a better alternative than that.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • kamenlady@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Should i nuclear or should i coal now?

      If i coal there will be trouble. And if i nuclear it will be double.

      source

      • stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        What?

        Coal is far, far, far worse than nuclear, even in terms in radiation.

        If we replaced all coal plabts with nuclear power we would hugely reduce the ammount of Co2 and radiation released.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• lnxtx@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Let the big tech pay for it.

  source

  • stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Sure!

    source
  • Wogi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Please don’t let venture capital get it’s fingers around the power grid that can’t possibly end well

    source

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yes, cut them off from the grid. Let them fend for themselves.

      source
• PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  A plant blew up one time due to being poorly mismanaged and an earthquake broke another one. Nothing bad has ever happened in the history of non-nuclear power generate. /s

  source

  • stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I never said that nothing bad has happened with nuclear power.

    Nuclear disasters are local, the ongoibg climate change disaster powered by coal plants (which let our a hell of a lot more radiation than nuclear plants) is global.

    I’ll take a local disaster any day over a global disaster

    source
  • HelloHotel@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Ofc! Oil gas and coal ONLY burn when placed in a funace. Attempt to light it on fire anywhere else and it will know and refuse catch fire. Its a safety feature. /s

    source
• pedz@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Nuclear plants cannot be built fast enough for the ever growing demands of “AI”.

  source

  • stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I am not talking about expantion, I am talking about replacement

    source
  • diskmaster23@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Those modular small scale reactors won’t take long.

    source

    • AA5B@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      That’s a great theory, but remember they’re really not in use yet. Well see

      source