That post seems to be missing.

ech 61 points 2 years ago

This is focusing on the wrong thing. Electricity demands should be expected to drastically increase, with or without llms or other such programs. We need to be focusing on electrifying pretty much everything if we’re going to make a dent on carbon emissions, which will naturally lead to a significant increase in power demands. If that only leads to different and/or more carbon emissions, that’s a problem with the infrastructure of the grid, not what it’s powering.

And to be clear, I think these companies using stupid amounts of power to run these things is stupid as hell, but blaming them for problems that should have been addressed ages ago isn’t going to solve the problem. We need massive and sweeping infrastructure changes asap.

path: 0 11413612, hotness: undefined, score: 61, children: 9

ExtremeDullard 19 points 2 years ago

The problem is, there is no plan in the US to upgrade the power grid - either at privaty company level, state level or federal level. It's just not in the cards. And the grid is headed straight for a complete collapse with the double whammy of electric cars and AI.

The other problem is, if you keep using coal to meet electrical demands, this will certainly make zero dent on carbon emissions. The other thing that needs to happen besides upgrading the grid is a massive increase in combined renewables / battery storage solution, or of course viable fusion power (fat chance...)

path: 0 11413612 11414025, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 4

BlackLaZoR 8 points 2 years ago

a massive increase in combined renewables / battery storage solution

This is happening.

path: 0 11413612 11414025 11414250, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

jubilationtcornpone 6 points 2 years ago

Power utilities frequently complain about declining base load generation capacity. On this particular issue, they are actually correct. You have to have a consistent level of base load generation capacity that is capable of scaling to meet peak demand. Wind and solar power are great but are not available on demand.

So, you can either store excess power generated by renewable sources or generate with non-renewable sources. Utility scale storage just isn't there at this point. Many of the coal plants that have been retired over the past two decades have been replaced by natural gas plants, which isn't really an improvement.

One thing that probably exacerbates this problem is the fact that much of the power generated in the US has historically been fairly localized. Meaning, it's generated pretty close to where it's consumed. Moving away from a "local" generation model is not as easy as it sounds and makes utilities nervous, for legitimate reasons.

What we need in the interim is more small scale nuclear development. It's far from a perfect solution but it's way better than what we currently have.

path: 0 11413612 11414025 11417593, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1

cloud_herder 5 points 2 years ago

Yep! Base load generation is the amount of energy that is constantly required and it has to be consistent. Any city or area will always use a certain minimum amount of energy, at every hour of the day. There is never a minute that demand dips below and this is called the base load. Intermittent renewables without storage can’t cover it, yet.

The other problem is economics. Hydro, geothermal, natural gas, nuclear, and coal can be operated to generate consistent reliable amounts of energy to cover it but at different costs. Removing hydro and geothermal as not all regions can leverage it - leaves, generally, coal, nat gas, and nuclear. Coal has been generally actively phased out over the last decade (in the US at least, I’m sure elsewhere), leaving natural gas and nuclear as options.

Nuclear with a substantially lower, if not negligible, carbon footprint outside of construction has so much red tape and lack of expertise and economies of scale that each plant and part ends up being close to bespoke with high costs and long construction times. Something like eight years and multiple billions of dollars.

Natural gas plants can be brought online in something like 1.5 to 2 years for substantially lower costs due to mass production, broader expertise, and less regulation.

What this leads to is a price per kW for being something like $.80+ for nuclear and like ~$.20 for natural gas over the lifetime of the plant.

These are all figures I loosely recall and haven’t confirmed or updated in my mind in a few years so I’m sure I’m off but the differences are roughly the same.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are looking to innovate to solve this economic problem with nuclear by providing mass production capabilities of nuclear power but we aren’t there yet.

So, for now, economically, natural gas is often chosen over nuclear just as coal was before it. Hopefully that changes in the future sooner rather than later.

path: 0 11413612 11414025 11417593 11418106, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

AA5B 4 points 2 years ago

There are plenty of plans. They’re just wholly inadequate.

Looking at my state. Coal is long gone. We plan offshore wind farms …. That keep getting blocked. We plan to buy huge amounts of long distance hydro … but transmission lines are blocked by intervening states. The ideas are there, the plans are there, but follow through is not. Clearing the obstacles is not

path: 0 11413612 11414025 11424901, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

hlmeless 3 points 2 years ago

path: 0 11413612 11414405, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

ech -1 points 2 years ago

Way to completely miss my point.

path: 0 11413612 11414405 11417964, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0

technocrit -2 points 2 years ago

Don't blame the people wasting massive amounts of dirty energy for nothing. Blame the people who aren't enabling them to waste massive amount of energy. Progress means wasting as much energy as possible.

path: 0 11413612 11418778, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 1

ech 5 points 2 years ago

Clearly not what I said, but keep focusing on the rage-bait instead of what is actually needed to fix the problems at hand.

path: 0 11413612 11418778 11420115, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

technocrit 40 points 2 years ago

When they say AI might destroy humanity, it's not due to some Terminator scenario...

It's just cause they're trashing the planet.

path: 0 11418733, hotness: undefined, score: 40, children: 3

AngryCommieKender 4 points 2 years ago

Do I need to go dig in Grand Central Station trash cans for a floppy disc?

path: 0 11418733 11420281, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2

Good_morning 2 points 2 years ago

Wait, is that a hackers reference?!?

path: 0 11418733 11420281 11431022, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

AngryCommieKender 2 points 2 years ago

Is this the account number of the hidden bank account in the Bahamas that the money was supposed to be deposited into?

I think so!

path: 0 11418733 11420281 11431022 11436743, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

pyre 23 points 2 years ago

we decided to slow plans to retire something no one wants to support something else that no one wants.

path: 0 11422382, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 0

maniii 19 points 2 years ago

AI seems to be just more and more statistical probabilities hashed-out at record-breaking speeds and power-consumption of computing. Its like that adage, "sufficiently advanced that it is magic" we are doing that for AI. We are building more and more complex statistical analysis engines that spew out near-perfect answers from garbage inputs at the expense of actual analysis ,research and development.

path: 0 11414677, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 9

PriorityMotif -7 points 2 years ago

path: 0 11414677 11418098, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 8

chuckleslord 13 points 2 years ago

You could do that training... and the "AI" can print out some lines that have the same writing styles as the articles. Because that's all LLMs can do. Don't buy the hype, they're just energy sucking predictive text bots. Nothing more. The whole thing is a dead end as far as finding the actual systems behind intelligence.

path: 0 11414677 11418098 11419255, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 3

PriorityMotif -6 points 2 years ago

path: 0 11414677 11418098 11419255 11421170, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 2

chuckleslord 6 points 2 years ago

No, it's a dead end. Not immature. Not "a burgeoning technology's with some kinks to iron out". It's the wrong proverbial tree to bark up. This is as good as this tech can ever get, which is why it's being sold so hard right now. Because it's turned into a grift to try and claw back the wasted R&D dollars.

path: 0 11414677 11418098 11419255 11421170 11421488, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1

chuckleslord 6 points 2 years ago

That requires intelligence to determine. "AI" ain't got none of that. It can tell you a recipe for muffins that definitely is probably edible, except for the obvious poisons.

path: 0 11414677 11418098 11419020, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

technocrit 3 points 2 years ago

You could build a rocket in your backyard, fly to Mars, and come back to tell humanity about your trip.

path: 0 11414677 11418098 11418748, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

PriorityMotif 0 points 2 years ago

path: 0 11414677 11418098 11418748 11421178, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

maniii 2 points 2 years ago

someone has to find the holes to input into the AI training data :'D so i guess that wont work.

path: 0 11414677 11418098 11418732, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

iAvicenna 19 points 2 years ago

lets fuck the planet up just a little bit more so that Russia and billionaires can spam the internet with chatgpt bots and create fake images.

path: 0 11418250, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 0

stoy 16 points 2 years ago

Give me an N!

N!

Give me a U!

U!

Give me a C!

C!

Give me an L!

L!

Give me an E!

E!

Give me an A!

A!

Give me an R!

R!

What does that make?

NUCLEAR!

path: 0 11414068, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 41

lnxtx 8 points 2 years ago

Let the big tech pay for it.

path: 0 11414068 11415378, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 3

stoy 6 points 2 years ago

Sure!

path: 0 11414068 11415378 11415395, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

Wogi 3 points 2 years ago

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

path: 0 11414068 11415378 11416520, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

technocrit 1 point 2 years ago

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

path: 0 11414068 11415378 11416520 11418864, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

PenisDuckCuck9001 4 points 2 years ago

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

path: 0 11414068 11418721, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2

HelloHotel 2 points 2 years 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

With nuclear, you cant reason with it! Thats why we have to keep the brightest minds around th facility, to trick it into stopping via reverse psycology. /s

Centralia became a portal to hell... and they are claimimg it's burning coal. SMH! /s

path: 0 11414068 11418721 11430926, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

stoy 2 points 2 years ago

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

Nuclear disasters are local, the ongoing 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

path: 0 11414068 11418721 11420650, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

pedz 3 points 2 years ago

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

path: 0 11414068 11416795, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 3

diskmaster23 1 point 2 years ago

Those modular small scale reactors won't take long.

path: 0 11414068 11416795 11416945, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

AA5B 1 point 2 years ago

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

path: 0 11414068 11416795 11416945 11424929, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

stoy 0 points 2 years ago

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

path: 0 11414068 11416795 11418224, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

Viking_Hippie -4 points 2 years ago

No.

path: 0 11414068 11414123, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 29

stoy 20 points 2 years ago

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

path: 0 11414068 11414123 11414153, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 28

Vash63 10 points 2 years 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.

path: 0 11414068 11414123 11414153 11414539, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 13

Miaou 11 points 2 years ago

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

path: 0 11414068 11414123 11414153 11414539 11415813, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0

stoy 4 points 2 years 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.

path: 0 11414068 11414123 11414153 11414539 11414620, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 11

bobtimus_prime -6 points 2 years 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 don't 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] https://www.mcc-berlin.net/...

path: 0 11414068 11414123 11414153 11414373, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 9

stoy 10 points 2 years 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.

path: 0 11414068 11414123 11414153 11414373 11414475, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 4

d4f0 7 points 2 years 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.

path: 0 11414068 11414123 11414153 11414373 11414611, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 3

kamenlady -13 points 2 years ago

Should i nuclear or should i coal now?

If i coal there will be trouble.

And if i nuclear it will be double.

path: 0 11414068 11414123 11414153 11414344, hotness: undefined, score: -13, children: 3

stoy 14 points 2 years ago

What?

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

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

path: 0 11414068 11414123 11414153 11414344 11414369, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 2

beefbaby182 10 points 2 years ago

Non-paywall link?

path: 0 11414869, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 1

Viking_Hippie 11 points 2 years ago

https://archive.ph/gFmCb

path: 0 11414869 11415107, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0

Viking_Hippie 2 points 2 years ago

Archive version

path: 0 11413500, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

thanks for using Leebra!

go to feed...

thanks for using Leebra!

go to feed...