this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
577 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

58690 readers
3962 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 63 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

At last, we'll be seeing nuclear reactors being created using Agile! Fail early, fail often, hopefully don't kill everyone!

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 13 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Amazon has a space program with rockets, Google is acquiring the nuclear facilities, will Microsoft develop a weapons manufacturing facility?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tronx4002@lemmy.world 37 points 21 hours ago (15 children)

I am suprised to see all the negativity. I for one think this is awesome and would love to see SMRs become more mainstream.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 12 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

I agree, and it is possibly the only good thing to come out of AI.
Like people asking "why do we need to go to the moon?!".

Fly-by-wire (ie pilot controls decoupled from physical actuators), so modern air travel.

Integrated circuits (IE multiple transistors - and other components - in the same silicon package). Basically miniaturisation and reduction in power consumption of computers.

GPS. The Apollo missions lead to the rocket tech/science for geosynchronous orbits require for GPS.


This time it is commercial.
I'd rather the power requirements were covered by non-carbon sources. However it proves the tech for future use.

For a similar example, I have a strong dislike of Elon Musk. He has ruined the potential of Twitter and Tesla, but SpaceX has had some impressive accomplishments.

Google are a shitty company. I wish the nuclear power went towards shutting down carbon power.
But SOMEONE has to take the risk. I wish that someone was a government. But it's Google. So.... Kind of a win?

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I'd rather the power requirements were covered by non-carbon sources

Is nuclear not?

[–] towerful@programming.dev 1 points 8 hours ago

I forgot what I was trying to say there.
I think it's along the lines of "I'd rather we didn't need a ridiculous amount of new power, but at least it's being covered by non-carbon sources".

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 118 points 1 day ago (26 children)

Crazy how quickly we've gone from "Nuclear is a dead technology, it can't work and its simply too expensive to build more of. Y'all have to use fossil fuels instead" to "We're building nuclear plants as quickly as our contractors can draft them, but only for doing experiments in high end algorithmic brute-forcing".

Would be nice if some of that dirt-cheap, low-emission, industrial capacity electricity was available for the rest of us.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago

I still think it's too expensive, and this contract doesn't change my position. Google is committing to buying power from reactors, at certain prices, as those reactors are built.

Great, having a customer lined up makes it a lot easier to secure financing for a project. This is basically where NuScale failed last year in Idaho, being unable to line up customers who could agree to pay a sufficiently high price to be worth the development risk (even with government subsidies from the Department of Energy).

But now Google has committed and said "if you get it working, we'll buy power from you." That isn't itself a strong endorsement that the project itself will be successful, or come in under budget. The risk/uncertainty is still there.

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 14 hours ago

Well, once the AI hype calms down and people realize the current approach won't lead to actual intelligence or "The Singularity", there may be quite some nuclear plants left over. That or they will be used to mine shitcoins.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago (2 children)
  1. Tax them enough that they don't have the cash to just up and build their own personal-use nuclear powered, nation spanning infrastructure.

  2. Use those taxes to build a nation spanning nuclear infrastructure that everyone can use.

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 16 hours ago

I've got so many ads so far for how adding new taxes is bad even if it pays for good things, and all of the issues they are arguing about aren't even adding any taxes. Actually adding taxes seems like a great way to make political enemies, even though it's often the best tool there is for a thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 54 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fun Times! Because everyone pays for the waste and when something goes wrong. Privatizing Profits while Socializing Losses. The core motor of capitalism.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 26 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (17 children)

The cleanup for fossil fuels is an order of magnitude more expensive, and an order of magnitude more difficult. It also impacts so many things that its true cost is impossible to calculate.

I'm aware of the issues with nuclear, but for a lot of places it's the only low/zero emission tech we can do until we have a serious improvement in batteries.

Very few countries can have a large stable base load of renewable energy. Not every country has the geography for dams (which have their own massive ecological and environmental impacts) or geothermal energy.

Seriously, we need to cut emissions now. So what's the option that anti-nuclear people want? Continue to use fossil fuels and hope battery tech gets good enough, then expand renewables? That will take decades. Probably 30+ years at the minimum.

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 14 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Nuclear should only be done by the state. Any commercial company doing nuclear HAS TO CARE FOR THE WASTE. It has to be in the calculation, but no on ecan guarantee 10000 years of anything. Same with fossils... execute the fossil fuel industry. They destroyed so much, they don't deserve to earn a single cent.

That funky startup is producing waste. Imagine a startup selling Asbestos as the new hot shit in 2024.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] lulztard@reddthat.com 170 points 1 day ago (5 children)
[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 83 points 1 day ago (8 children)

We're living in a cyberpunk nightmare

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Mandy@sh.itjust.works 47 points 1 day ago

Cyberpunk dystopias weren't supposed to be guidelines dammit

[–] sweetpotato@lemmy.ml 41 points 1 day ago (7 children)

So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn't replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that...cool

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The other side of the coin is that AI currently uses more power than is produced by all renewables across the globe annually. So at least they'll be offsetting that, which would be a net positive.

And it seems like Google's funding will help advance safer and more modern nuclear plant designs, which is another win that could lead to replacing coal plants in many countries with small scale reactors that don't run on uranium.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ownsauce@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

The article mentions Kairos Power but doesn't mention that their reactors in development are molten-salt cooled. While they'll still use Uranium, its a great step in the right direction for safer nuclear power.

If development continues on this path with thorium molten-salt fueled and cooled reactors, we could see safe and commercially viable nuclear (thorium) energy within our lifetimes.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-06/china-building-thorium-nuclear-power-station-gobi/104304468

To my layman's knowledge, using thorium molten-salt instead of uranium means the reactor can be designed in a way where it can't melt down like Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Edit: The other implication of not using uranium is that the leftover material is harder to make in to bombs, so the technology around molten-salt thorium reactors could be spread to current non-nuclear states to meet their energy needs and reduce reliance on coal plants around the planet.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 3 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

The meltdown that happened in Chernobyl happened because of mismanagement. Yes, there were design flaws in the system, but lots of rules had to be broken before the design flaws were triggered.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›