-5 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
reply
6 points
*

Plants that take ten years to build don’t seem like a very good response to a boom that measures dataceneter build time in months and will probably collapse in a year or two as hype is replaced by the reality of the technology. Battery backed solar and wind on the other hand are both cheaper, and can be built faster than the ‘AI’ datacenters they are ment to power.

Don’t get me wrong, I think nuclear power is important to the energy transition, and will find its use in certain use cases like large scale marine transport or places near the artic circle, but the window to build it was 1970 to 2010. At a point when the biggest thing slowing down green energy if finding financing for it, it makes sense to go with the lowest cost option available, which is battery backed solar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Plants take 10 year to build because of a purposely complicated burocratic process. We churn out at least 1 nuclear submarines a year.

Edit: I still think you’re right, renewables and batteries are cheaper than nuclear in most first world countries, but the building process doesn’t have to be that long.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

10 years is unrealistic, today it’s closer to 15 years. Both time frames would be too late. Doesn’t matter either way though since the US elections. The world is not going to be able to compensate for the US emissions under Trump’s fascism when we were already on our way to 3 degrees globally BEFORE that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

No, we already needed nuclear power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

OR…“and that’s why we don’t need AI”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

In domain-specific applications, yeah, agree. But building massive datacenters so randos on the internet can ask it to draw a picture of the Spice Girls if they were all anthropomorphic top-hats is a waste of resources, IMO lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Anecdotally, it has 10x my ability at rapid prototyping.

and it only needed the power supply of Germany to do it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Why is this even downvoted?

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

AI was never going to save the climate. Its meant to give elites even more control over the population

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Anyone who believes it’s going to take AI to find out fossil fuels are killing us all rapidly is a complete fucking moron.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

5 years ago: “We really need to be careful with AI, it might turn everything into paperclips!!!”

Now:" AI needs paperclips to run so we need to destroy our planet and turn it into paperclips for AI"

Drexler must be rolling in his grave.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

AI won’t fix the climate, but it also doesn’t need fossil fuels either.

permalink
report
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.1K

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators