this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024

40 points (90.0% liked)

News

23722 readers

3456 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

Biden drafting plan for construction of AI data centers on federal lands (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 4 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Worried the United States could fall behind in artificial intelligence, the White House wants to encourage data centers and dedicated power plants.

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/55Ede

top 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] nixfreak@sopuli.xyz 26 points 4 days ago (2 children)

This is fucking stupid , AI data centers are horrible and people hate having them in residential areas, plus they use massive amounts of water. This is stupid and AI is not the future.

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I wish I could just press "fast forward" and skip the years this society is wasting on AI, just the latest (cough... very profitable for the elite few) distraction from facing the rapidly looming polycrisis more directly.

[–] Argonne@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

AI is not a trend. It's like calling computers a trend. Good luck

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In thirty years we will have neither, and the surviving humans will be living at a mostly pre-industrial level of technology, unable to repair or rebuild most of what exists today.

[–] Argonne@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ok, go back to the equivalent of r/conspiracy lol 😆 😂

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee -1 points 3 days ago

Gladly, but more like r/collapse 😐

[–] RogueBanana@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's definitely a tend but not on the way you are thinking of. The majority of usage from what I understand is shoving AI in places they don't belong. Google search is a great example of that, a massive fucking waste of resources for people who are too lazy to go to the source and read. Once the hype dies along with a bunch of those useless AI based companies, maybe then we can focus AI in fields where it actually helps.

[–] Argonne@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

AI is already being used in places where it helps. I use it at work multiple times a day. You don't hear about that because there is nothing to rage about that. It's a tool that helps when used right. You are talking about the dumb uses, but you can say that about anything. There is a lot of dumb talk about AI it feels like a blind hate echo chamber

[–] RogueBanana@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Bruh obviously. Hence why I used the word "majority" and "focus".

[–] Argonne@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Point still stands bro. You just don't hear about the other uses. It's just what YOU hear about, which is mostly dumb AI shit. Just this weekend I used AI to upscale an old 720p video to 4K

[–] RogueBanana@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

I am well aware of them including ai upscaling, workflow usage, etc. My point is completely different, not on usage of AI.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

They only good use I've seen is making dagoth ur say funny things.

[–] Argonne@lemmy.world -5 points 3 days ago

AI is the future though. Open your eyes https://situational-awareness.ai/

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And, let me guess, we'll need to drill for oil on those federal lands so we can power those data centers.

All for AI that almost no one wants.

[–] DurbanPoison@feddit.nl 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Don't worry, they'll probably build taxpayer-subsidised nuclear power plants for electricity which won't be available for access for the general public.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But the general public will have to pay to store and secure all of the waste and clean it up when natural disasters hit the pools.

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Nuclear waste isn't stored in pools

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago

Pee isn't stored in the balls. (couldn't resist)

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What?????? Spent Fuel Pools (SFPs) are the most common place it's stored. They're what ended up getting flooded and spilling into the ocean in the Fukushima disaster.

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/pools.html

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Casks are by far, like it's not even close, the most common storage method. SFPs aren't even long term storage options.

...and no, that's not what caused the radiation leak into the ocean at Fukushima.

You people actually make me sick sometimes. I'm sure the oil industry pays you well but Christ, someone needs to DDD your bosses so we don't have to deal with you anymore.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

What are you talking about. The description in the parent site of the one I linked says specifically, "Currently, most spent nuclear fuel is safely stored in specially designed pools at individual reactor sites around the country."

And no sh*t it's not a long term storage method. But it's where most of our waste is right now in the US.

And no, I'm starkly anti-fossil-fuel, but nuclear is 100% not cleaner unless you ignore the waste entirely. There are so many renewables and other options for cheaper, cleaner energy. But companies don't count waste disposal as an operating cost (only short term storage), so nuclear looks cheap to investors because 1 million years kind of longterm isn't part of their investment strategy. And that's how long we need to be able to store a lot of this stuff unless it's fully reprocessed down to safe levels of radiation, which has proven totally unprofitable in the short-term (decades-term), so it's never been done.

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Why can’t we just use nuclear power for this? I know some companies are planning it. Using any other energy source is inefficient and expensive for AI training.

[+] irotsoma@lemmy.world -6 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Because there is no waste storage much less anywhere that could stand for the necessary thousands of years. And waste reprocessing is too costly for it ever to be developed by a for-profit or even non-profit but needs to break even company. It would cost trillions and several decades of no political interference in that money to research, develop, and build the reactors, best case.

So, it just sits in pools waiting for a tornado to spread the contaminated water over a whole state, or an earthquake or fracking tremor to cause a leak into the ground water. If AI is chewing through rods, in a decade there will be a hell of a lot of waste and nowhere to put it, much less anywhere to keep it safe for thousands of years.

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

.....look up ANY information on nuclear waste before ever commenting again.

The Simpsons is not reality.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think maybe you should take your own advice. All of the data is on the NRC and energy.gov websites. There's about 90,000 metric tons of waste in temporary storage in the US alone and the half life of the waste is around 20,000 years, meaning it will be about 1 million years before it's safe. There are no functional long term storage facilities and there's no permanent solution that will last 1 million years. Most are designed for about 10,000 years, which again, don't actually exist, just designed.

Edit: oh, and it was the US government who taught me all this information as I had training as part of my job in the Navy.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Canada has a program.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world -3 points 4 days ago

And in 10,000 years, when the tectonic plates have moved enough to disrupt the deteriorating construction materials, who is going to dig it up and rebuild it. And then the next 10,000 years, and the next.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I know this is ironic given my username but you do realize nuclear waste doesnt work like sci-fi? There was a dump site planned in Nevada that was abandoned as a concept because there wasnt enough waste across the USA, this was at the height of nuclear power too. We have only gotten more efficient since then, hell inefficiency is actually introduced since some byproducts are useful for some alloys and composites.

Also if ya can find a suitable location nuclear waste can quite literally be ignored till it's not a problem due to how half life works.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world -5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It wasn't abandoned because there wasn't enough waste. That doesn't make any sense. You don't wait to finish building a dump until there's enough garbage to fill it. And we already have over 90,000 metric tons and produce about 2,000 per year.

And the half life is way longer than the life of any materials that would be used in construction or the movement of tectonic plates that would disrupt the storage. It literally would need to be dug up and rebuilt every ten thousand years or so to keep it from leaking. We don't have the technology to dig so deep that we can ignore it, and much of the waste will be unsafe for about a million years "due to how half life works".

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It was abandoned as a project because there wasnt enough waste to justify the utilities, security, or transportation costes associated. So yes a project can be killed cause there isnt enough waste, especially when said waste can be used for weapons with minimal modifications. There is a explosive disposal facility near me that had to shutdown half of its building because they arent getting enough shit to destroy and burry.

If you are having to factor in radioactive material on the scale of tens millennia then you are dealing moreso with issues of pollution and chemical toxicity, since by that point its barely outputting more than a background amount of radiation. Unless you think Colorado is a radiation blasted hellscape since half the damned state is a uranium deposit. Just using Chernobyl as an example most of the threat isnt the radiation unless you want to go fuck the elephant foot, its the utterly absurd amount of toxic dust that was scattered everywhere which while harmless outside of your body will fuck you up internally.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You do have to factor in waste for that long because it's only background radiation if it's properly stored. When the coffin cracks on the Chernobyl core, it will be dangerous AF. Also, as all the Russian soldiers who were stationed there and exposed because they don't know about the history of the meltdown at all, much less that it was there. It's not hard to google the half life of the materials. And if you think concentrated, enriched uranium or plutonium is the same danger level as natural uranium, maybe you should build a reactor yourself and get rich. Sorry to say, the energy output by enriched uranium, even the spent stuff, is exponentially higher than the stuff in the ground.

Finally, you may want to research the difference between alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. Just because the news only talks about gamma because it's the only one that would hurt you from outside your body, doesn't mean that the alpha and beta aren't way more deadly if they get into your body through your water supply, or into the ground and thus into the plants and animals you eat. And it's cumulative, you can't get rid of it easily and the longer it's in you, the more damage it does.

And this is just the very basics. I was trained by the Navy in all this stuff. It's not like I'm talking out my ass. Not to mention you can get it all from the NRC, NIH, and energy.gov websites if you want among many, many other resources as much of it is public knowledge outside of the specifics.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We can literally toss such waste into deep mines and forget about them. You are talking about matters on a timescale so massive that it becomes utterly meaningless to those who exist now and will exist then, the best solution is to leave as much of a footprint that the sand of time doesnt erase it in the vague hope that our distant descendants may be able to source a theoretical problem.

Do you know what our ancestors were doing 10,000 years ago, because I only know the broadest of strokes. I severely doubt they could even conceptualize 10,000 years a functional timescale. Within the last 10,000 years every empire and civilization that has existed has risen and fallen with room to spare. I can get worrying about the timescale of a thousand years but ten thousand is another beast all together.

I am not proposing being loose with regulations or structure, but moreso pointing out that almost any other problem short of the sun burning out is far more pressing. Hell we could problem accelerate and reverse global warming over a thousand times within ten thousand years. How about we focus on the here and now and not literally the far and istant future when all our cities will have been ground to fucking dust.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Great solution. Poison the ground in ten thousand years so you don't have to care. You realize there's enough to make the entire world unlivable for nearly a million years, right? And we're still producing. A little tiny amount escaped into an ocean in Japan that covers nearly half the globe and it is still detectable in the US, that watered down. Now imagine hundreds of thousands of metric tons seaping into the soil and water table for hundreds of thousands of years from mines all over the world. You realize the deepest mine we've ever created barely scratches the surface of the Earth, literally, right. We don't have the technology to dig deep enough for it to be safe once the encasing cracks.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wow all of what you said is bullshit or overblown alarmism, bavo bravo. No it wont sterilize the fucking earth, if it was possible the iridium layer would've done so eons ago. Also sure we can detect the left overs from Fukushima, but its still lower than the effect most volcanic events have on local water tables since volcanoes actually have quite a bit of raw nuclear material mixed quite toxic too.

You wouldnt need to dig deep enough to chuck it into the mantle, just deep enough to compress it into a particularly exotic ore when you cave the entire damned mine in.

Also the reason I dont care about 10,000 years from now is cause mankind will either be gone, so primitive it doesnt matter, or technologically advanced enough to deal with the problem. As I said all of human history fits into 10,000, years with about 4,000 to spare.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah but only a tiny bit escaped from Fukushima into an ocean that covers a large part of the world and it's still detectable. And there's a big difference in the effects of things around you being irradiated and things you eat and drink being irradiated.

And sure in 10,000 years things will be different, but eliminating the possibility for all large animals to survive in a part of the world for a million years after 10,000 seems like a bad plan. And if humans aren't around or don't remember, it will be a particularly horrible way to die off when the radiation does start to escape and slowly spread out from each of the dumps across the world.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Its barely detectable the reservoir effect isnt strong enough to do anything, frankly speaking ocean acidification is the bigger problem. Hell im pretty sure the only reason we can detect it in such small amounts is because radiation detection equipment is old, universal, and well developed. The closest second is probably arsenic or lead testing.

Also the reason that I dont considsr it an extinction level threat is because we have had equivalent amounts spewed out through natural means. That is to say there are multiple layers of minerals that are identified via nuclear materials, include ones we traditionally consider synthetic. To put it lightly according to you these layers should all be associated with global mass extinctions but only two of them are, the grest dying which was when Siberia decided it in fact wanted to be a volcanic hellscape and the Yucatan impact aka when an asteroid made sweet love with the Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs.

Also as a quick aside the current effect that is going on with animal life in the Pacific from those materials is a recycling effect, basically the animals are pissing and shitting it out of their systems where smaller creatures proceed to eat and and then repeat ad nauseam. The only way the situation could get worse is if the decay rate of said materials increased which is impossible without a reactor.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not saying the Fukushima event will have any lasting effect. I'm saying that the type of materials that were released (I.e. nuclear fision waste) are exponentially more dangerous than any naturally occurring radioactive materials. And that is evidenced by the fact that it's detectable with all of the other naturally occurring "background" radiation in the ocean already. The fact that such a tiny bit, watered down by such a huge amount of water and animal life, is still detectable means that if a fraction of the current US stockpile of 90,000+ metric tons of material were to leak into the ground water, it would be unimaginably more problematic.

You're talking about radiation like it's a single thing. Like, oh because these few types of naturally occurring radioactive materials that are composed primarily of low energy alpha particles exists like radium or U-238, that PU-240 or U-235 or any of the other high level waste coming out of reactors, especially if we start up the old reactors to power AI that produce more weapons grade materials than the more modern ones. There's a reason you can't just dig up uranium and build reactors or weapons to use it. It has to be enriched and concentrated.

You really should take a class in basics of radioactivity before considering yourself knowledgeable about the subject. I spent a year studying it in the Navy, and although I didn't really use it practically that much, it's always been an interest, so I've studied it quite a bit. It's not as simple as this is radioactive and not that bad so all radioactivity must not be bad. We're talking tens or hundreds of thousands of times more energetic between some of these things.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I get all of that, the point ive been trying to make is that the risk of them being pollutants is relatively low. The reason I brought up these rare but notable events for example is cause they are so violent as to create traditionally synthetic materials that are extremely deadly, the reason we even know about them is because of highly specific forms of weathering on say fossils or bones with the younger ones.

The problem I have with your pollution point is that there is basically no way for it to all get out and get to everything. A facility failing in Idaho probably wouldnt do anything to California unless Yellowstone went off and at that point we have other problems. Any containment failure would be largely localized events unless they are right on a river or ontop of an oceanic stream. Which to me just means we need to build these reactors qnd their sotrage facilities in infinitely more remote locations. If anything us not having a centralized stockpile makes such a mass containment failure pretty much impossible. 90,000+ metric tonnes of material isnt that much scattered across the US, sure its a lot but for perspective thats about one and half M1 Abrams.

Also im somewhat ignoring your points on variable emitters since without actual numbers we have no clue what it all constitutes. Without numbers half of it could all be materials set aside for depleted uranium rounds or alloys that use spent fuel in production, orr it could be a shit tonne of high energy emitters. We dont know and I kinda doubt the agency in charge of this has public numbers.

Also I agree with you on reactivating these old reactors, I want them upgraded before use preferably ones that can reuse old fuel. Also frankly I dont trust these AI companies to run old reactors, its an annoying amount of work for basically no gain. The only upside is that it may give new fuel towards building modern reactors that have minimal waste and upgrading old reactors. Hell preferably we would have some thorium-plutonium reactors built into the mix.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Problem is that there is currently no actual place to put the stuff so it's not localized. If a war broke out or a serious terror campaign, the first thing to be targeted would be the locations of power infrastructure and this waste. Not to mention natural disasters or them just being ignored for too long like global warming has been. In a few decades the amount could easily double or more. There's plenty of it that if it were to reach a major river or other waterway it could spread significantly.

My point is, why risk it when this technology doesn't even produce as much energy as we could produce with renewables with comparatively little risk of pollution? The only reason it looks good on paper is that no company expects to exist long enough to care about the waste, so no money is set aside to deal with it. Just like no money is set aside to deal with climate change. And even if it was set aside to deal with the current waste by pitting it in long term storage. That storage isn't long-term enough to actually keep it until it's safe. Sure it will be safe for a long time, but eventually it will leak and if no one knows it's there or the tech to deal with it isn't there by then, it will spread and if will spread far and wide over the hundreds of thousands of years it has to spread. And sure the US is landlocked and may find a place that the tectonic plates never split the continent. But in a million years it's unlikely that Europe will look the same do it's likely the Atlantic will get contamination and Japan is a volcanic island so it's pretty likely it will leak into the Pacific. I'm saying there's enough in existence already for the majority of the world to get contaminated. And if life hasn't already been wiped out by climate change or war, it likely will face an existential threat from this. So why use it if there are alternatives that are really not that much more expensive to construct? It's only because those are less expensive to maintain and thus less opportunity for extracting profit from those services.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Great idea...

Let's make sure Elmo and trump can build data centers on federal lands wherever they want, surely nothing could go wrong.