this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
174 points (95.3% liked)

Technology

58690 readers
3928 users here now

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


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. 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
[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 1 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I don't see where this is being paid for with tax dollars. It looks like it's all privately funded to me.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/03/nuclear-microsoft-ai-constellation/

Here's the one for Microsoft. Google will follow suit sooner or later. These companies don't get this loaded by spending their money on big projects like this

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 14 minutes ago

It's a loan, not a grant. I agree they should go to the private sector for the load if they want to keep the energy for private use only, but they are required to pay it back, with interest. The company is worth far more than the loan is, so it's very low risk.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Actually, it's billions of public dollars. And if we don't find a proper permanent solution, it's going to become more: https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 minutes ago

That article is pretty inflammatory, on purpose I believe. It rolls all of the costs into one, including nuclear weapons testing, costs of the Manhattan project, and even the costs other forms of energy entail at times. It's clearly an anti-nuclear article doing it's best to make the reader believe the costs are higher than they actually are.

I do agree with the article that we need to implement solutions, but they aren't difficult. We know how to solve it, and it isn't particularly expensive. These videos give good insight into how easy to contain nuclear waste is and solutions that we already have for it.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU