150
Tech bosses think nuclear fusion is the solution to AI’s energy demands – here’s what they’re missing.
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
150 points (87.1% liked)
Technology
59116 readers
3115 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In situations where that's feasible, it's good. But it's far from feasible all the time.
You certainly couldn't replace all existing fossil fuels with it, or even scratch the surface really.
Norway can do stuff like this because they have the geography for it, as well as a population that's like a 15th of the UK or a 60th of the US. They don't actually need much energy.
They need heating at winter and they have datacenters and a lot of renewable energy.
Also the principles I've described is applicable for everything non-autonomous, and one could think of "electric" cars (a bit like trams) which would use contacts on the ground for energy, while when they'd need to be autonomous, they'd use batteries or ICEs.
That kind of "mechanical energy storage" can be created everywhere. I mean, water reserves with hydroelectric stations downstream are already used for that purpose, but for those you need water.
Efficiency is a bit of a problem - you have to maintain the mechanical parts, you first use energy to lift something with losses and then generate energy from letting it slide back...
That's all a bit off topic, really.
What's important is that there are ways around lithium for a lot of energy usage of our civilization.
Yes, they need heating in winter... for a tiny population. And they have very little in the way of data centres.
Again, these are only suitable depending on the environment you're in. E.g. pumped water storage is only effective if you have the terrain to allow for it (a large hill or mountain with space for a large body of water).
I never said lithium was an outright requirement. I said batteries can't currently take the planet off of fossil fuels, then I said that other energy storage systems are very dependent on the location.
E.g. despite there being a lot of rainfall in the UK, there are only 3 places suitable for pumped water energy storage. It can't be relied upon for powering a country unless you're phenomenally fortunate with geography.
Well, I can think of the inverse - separating a piece of coastline and pumping seawater out when you have excess energy, letting it back in via turbines to get energy. In that context UK does have fitting terrain, it's just underwater.
Seawater is very nasty to machinery though.
Tidal power continues to be researched, but it's proving very difficult, currently completely unviable. It certainly cannot replace all non-renewable energy.
I didn't mean tides. I meant a dam separating an area, from which water is pumped out to "store" energy, and let in through generators to "spend" energy.