“There’s no way to get there without a breakthrough,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, arguing that AI will soon need even more energy.
“There’s no way to get there without a breakthrough,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, arguing that AI will soon need even more energy.
Nuclear energy is four times cheaper than renewables when externalities like baseline generation are imputed: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035?via%3Dihub
While more dangerous, the quantity of waste generated compared to all other forms of energy generation is very small. Storage is a solved problem, but you have probably read articles about a lack of storage in the U.S. This is entirely due to politicians’ failure to agree on where to store waste. Despite the relative safety, no one wants nuclear waste stored in their “back yard.”
Nuclear energy generates zero CO2. Surely we can agree that this is the most pressing consideration in terms of climate change. If your concern is the nuclear waste, then I direct you to the growing problem of disposing of solar cells and wind turbines. Newer turbine blades, for example, are 40 meters long and weigh 2.5 tons. These cannot be recycled.
No matter how you cut the data, nuclear is an order of magnitude better than almost all other forms of energy generation. If our goal is to radically improve our environmental footprint while keeping the lights on even at night when it’s not windy, then nuclear absolutely must be part of the mix.
This guy knows his shit
Unfortunately he does only know how to misrepresent shit. This is of course all bullshit, and at best outdated information that does not take the massively falling price of renewable energy into account. Nuclear can be a transition helper, IF and only IF you already have running reactors.
We could’ve had those reactors if people didn’t say the same things you’re saying 30 years ago.
Let’s see your data
Let’s talk about the technology instead of the dumb word “nuclear”. Thorium fission > uranium fission.
Plant near me had a 1000% construction cost overrun and the company that owns it now is always threatening to shut it down if the state doesn’t give them more money.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Power_Station
If we look at just Europe, Slovakia, Finland, and Belarus all brought new reactors online last year alone. There are another six reactors currently under construction, and another 33 planned. France and Sweden recently announced their strategic commitment to nuclear power for a variety of reasons.
One major technological breakthrough is Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These are far more cost effective, very safe (the reactor shuts down in the event of loss of power and coolant), and require a much smaller footprint. Rolls-Royce is on target to deliver the first of these in 2030.
The example you provide is an example of poor governance, not an inherent limitation of the technology. There are also examples of poor governance regarding renewable energy all over the world.
Will the reactors come with the little lady at the front?
Oh wow a government cost overrun. THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!
mostly because nobody knows how to build a reactor properly anymore… Wonder why that happened.
Wierd spin you put on all of that. Burn the solar panels and blades. Reclaim the energy in heat and its still way safer than nuclear waste.
You can’t be serious, can you? First off you would need pretty higher temperatures to burn glass. Secondly the fumes and dust it would put out would be nasty.
Yeah, still not radioactive nasty though. Don’t get how you are all so naive. The only reason most countries have a nuclear program is so they have nuclear weapons.
You are right it isn’t very radioactive and a lot harder to control, not like I designed air scrubbers for 4 years of my life or something.
Citation needed.
A pity decades of OPEC propaganda has worked so well.
Ahh you’re not naive you are biased. Anything you say is effectively propaganda. Jog on.
Argument ad homunium.
It’s a valid point in this case and I’m not attacking your character, I have respect for engineers/designers especially when it comes to reducing pollution. Rather I am attacking your position, which is not without bias, would you not agree on that?
If you mean that I am biased towards following evidence over feelings and like facts over propaganda then yes I am biased. Generally I am not convinced by “nuclear power bad because nukes bad and they are exactly the same according to a Jane Fonda movie I saw”.
Nuclear power produces very little pollution and it is of manageable types. Once built it can pretty much outlast any energy source. It is very reliable and can produce energy at the same price for long periods of time. Renewables definitely have their uses and I would be happy if they displaced all fossil fuels.
The only reason most countries have a nuclear program capable of generating plutonium products is to build nuclear weapons*
FTFY