Technology

60073 readers

4528 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 2 years 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 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Dot@feddit.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

82 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

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can you back up your original claim - that we can sufficiently power all of our grids with current batteries, and that current battery manufacturing is enough to do so?

With reputable sources.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That’s not how this works. You made a tall claim, without sources. Now it seems you’re not willing to provide proof to substantiate it. Why?

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You made a tall claim, and still haven't substantiated it. Why?

Show me this proof that we have the batteries to eliminate all fossil fuels.

You know that's how it works, right? You make a claim, you need evidence to support it...

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This you?

We do not currently have the battery tech to have a fully renewables-powered grid where batteries are used for the regular dips in production wind and solar have.

We likely won’t have infrastructure like that in place for decades.

Put up or shut up.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Right, and I replied to a comment where you claimed we can just use batteries to replace everything but renewables.

Put up or shut up. Where's the data?

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, I said this

If only we had some way of storing energy for use later. Oh well.

Not this, as you claim

Right, and I replied to a comment where you claimed we can just use batteries to replace everything but renewables.

Why are you making stuff up?

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, exactly. And we don't have a way to store all that energy. So I'm not sure why you're lying by saying we do.

Why are you lying?

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Either you’re trolling or you have trouble with reading comprehension. Either way, easy block.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I'm just asking you to provide a source for your (obviously untrue) claim.