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

Technology

59534 readers
3168 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lulztard@reddthat.com 189 points 1 month ago (4 children)
[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 92 points 1 month ago (8 children)

We're living in a cyberpunk nightmare

[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Not yet we're not!

Still plenty of nature to kill before humanity cannot survive in any capacity without corpo supply chains.

If you're breathing free air, drinking real water, and actual food can grow out of the ground we're comparably in cyber paradise given how much worse AI spycraft and corporate ownership will worsen everything exponentially for the non-connected over the next decades

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But without the cool neon aesthetic. ☹️

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Businesses generating their own power is not anything new. The big auto manufacturers used to do it back in the day, and if you scale down the concept, every windmill (the grain grinding kind) and waterwheel built and operated for profit is the same thing. I'm just happy that Google is seemingly having their own built, instead of getting taxpayers to build it for them.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Yeah, if this is what it takes to get new design nuclear facilities in the US, then I'm counting it a win, but I won't count it either way until the watts come out. Who knows: if they run ok, an actual power company might even try one.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 133 points 1 month ago (34 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.

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 64 points 1 month 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 31 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 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 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 (17 replies)
[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Everyone pays for not using nuclear too, a thousand fold more so.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 month 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 16 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 68 points 1 month 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 15 points 1 month 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 (3 replies)
[–] ownsauce@lemmy.world 60 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 54 points 1 month ago (4 children)

For some reason this doesn't feel like good news.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Mandy@sh.itjust.works 52 points 1 month ago

Cyberpunk dystopias weren't supposed to be guidelines dammit

[–] sweetpotato@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 month 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 month ago (2 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.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And it seems like Google's funding will help advance safer and more modern nuclear plant designs

Hopefully.

But the cynic in me is always concerned when shareholder owned companies are operating something that has the potential to go very wrong very quickly if/when they cut too many corners in the pursuit of that extra 0.5% of profit.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] tronx4002@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (17 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.

[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think the negativity is more about it being used for AI than to solve any important problems with the world.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] towerful@programming.dev 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

Is nuclear not?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 33 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Boy are they gonna look stupid when they realize that no one outside their little bubble has a use for AI.

It’s not even close to ready for launch and why are we wasting energy on it?

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (9 children)

because idiots like me who have no marketable skills can use it to fool ourselves into thinking we can do code/art/literature/etc.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Actually this going to be great news when the AI Bust happens because we'll still have more clean power and we won't be wasting it on stupid bullshit.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (10 children)

After they decide to abandon their AI project can we use them for something meaningful?

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] leds@feddit.dk 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

AI seems perfect for renewables load balancing. Got extra power to burn because it is windy at night? Train your models

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

I have no issue with the safety of nuclear power plants, however: fissile material is no more renewable than fossil fuels even if it's much greener. Also, in terms of more localized ecological damage, uranium mining is a disaster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_people

Maybe Google should focus on building its plants near geothermal hotspots instead if it's forced to suck up vast amounts of power for AI no one wants.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (10 children)

I'll be amazed if this ever comes to fruition.

Generally speaking renewables + storage are the cheapest way of generating non-polluting power. After that there's nuclear power and it's much, much more expensive:

After that, and even more expensive are SMRs. Also, they don't actually exist yet as a means of generating power.

From the article, "For example, it has already received the green light from the U.S. Nuclear Registry Commission (the first one to do so) to build its Hermes non-powered demonstrator reactor in Tennessee. Although it still doesn’t have nuclear fuel on-site, this is a major step in its design process, allowing the company to see its system in real life and learn more about its deployment and operation."

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Generally speaking renewables + storage are the cheapest way of generating non-polluting power.

At variable scale, based on time of year and weather. Nuclear is much better for base-load, particularly at the scale of GWs. You know exactly how much electricity you're going to get 24/7, and the fuel costs aren't exposed to a market that can vary by 150-300% annually.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] sunbytes@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Great, so when they abandon the nuclear project in 18mths who will maintain them?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nuclear has never been profitable without massive government subsidies and guarantees, and ~~Google~~ Kairos too will either manage to collect those or lose money.

It’s unclear how Google and Kairos set up the deal — whether the former is providing direct funding or if it just promised to buy the power that the latter generates when its reactors are up and running. Nevertheless, Kairos has already passed several milestones, making it one of the more promising startups in the field of nuclear energy.

I guarantee you, they are shouldering on none of the risk (like the Chinese and French at Hinkley Point), and this startup will be going down.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Growing from a broad research effort at U.S. universities and national laboratories, Kairos Power was founded to accelerate the development of an innovative nuclear technology ...

Kairos Power is focused on reducing technical risk through a novel approach to test iteration often lacking in the nuclear space. Our schedule is driven by the goal of a U.S. demonstration plant before 2030 and a rapid deployment thereafter. The challenge is great, but so too is the opportunity.

So basically academics finding people to fund a large scale lab experiment, they want to get working by 2030. It sounds like they sold Google on an idea (for funding) and now have to move their idea from the lab to the real world. It does sound safer than water cooled plants of old at least.

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (14 children)

Will energy prices become negative when the AI bubble bursts?

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] NutWrench@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

The power required for this level of AI won't be used for faster delivery of pizzas. It will be used for surveillance and control. For world domination shit.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago

These are the small, buried reactors right? The ones that we tested on paper but haven't gotten NRC/DOE to sign off on?

I know they are MSRs but still...

[–] lowleveldata@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (4 children)

This makes it sounds like Google is building their own nuclear plants

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nope, they have a partner that's doing that and the partner is going to be providing small modular reactors. Although we are not sure according to the article whether Google is going to be running them directly to their data centers or whether they are going to be providing energy to homes and buying renewable energy credits or something. Either way, small modular reactors should bring down the price of nuclear.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›