Technology

59116 readers

3013 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

150

Tech bosses think nuclear fusion is the solution to AI’s energy demands – here’s what they’re missing. (theconversation.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Dot@feddit.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

nuclear power produces long-lived radioactive waste, which needs to be stored securely. Nuclear fuels, such as the element uranium (which needs to be mined), are finite, so the technology is not considered renewable. Renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power suffer from “intermittency”, meaning they do not consistently produce energy at all hours of the day.

fusion technologies have yet to produce sustained net energy output (more energy than is put in to run the reactor), let alone produce energy at the scale required to meet the growing demands of AI. Fusion will require many more technological developments before it can fulfil its promise of delivering power to the grid.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

"if we store them safely" - here's the problem with the entire argument. Nobody wants to pay for it, so they won't unless they are forced to. Carbon capture is a viable technology but it costs money to implement at a net financial loss, so nobody uses that if they don't have to either. The problem is the same as always - nobody who stands to lose money gives a damn. The planet dying is somebody else's concern tomorrow, and profits are their concern today.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We've already paid for it though. That's why we built Yucca Mountain.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Jon Oliver did an entire segment on that in the fourth season, featuring news segments from the late 70s early 80s

Relevant ~~XKCD~~ Last Week Tonight

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Are you talking about the USA? Because I don't see this mentality much outside of it.

But yeah, make it a law and force them.

[–] Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

At least in Germany it's the same. It gets ignored in the discussions concerning nuclear exit but it's actually the main reason why I'm not aggressively against it: we have save areas for nuclear storage but those fight bitterly to not have it. The areas which are currently used are... Not good. Paying someone else (such as Finland) is out of budget for both state and energy companies. The latter anyway want to do the running but not the maintenance and the building, state should pay for that.

It's really white sad for me. The (true) statement that the dangerous waste needs to be stored carefully got corrupted to "it can't be stored".