nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

My impression is that this is a PR push, designed to avoid having to invest in renewables, and let them keep on burning gas and coal, rather than something likely to come to fruition.

  • SelfProgrammed@lemmy.world
    9·
    13 hours ago

    Nuclear is a good option but calling it emission-free is glossing over a pretty big problem we haven’t solved yet.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      12 hours ago

      Even if they don’t burn fossils, the steel and concrete alone emits thousands/millions of tons of GHG’s; every project.

      I guarantee the mining and refinement of fissile material is also extremely energy and water intensive, and I wouldn’t be surprised if most of those embodied GHG’s are ignored or criminally underreported.

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    3·
    12 hours ago

    Unfortunately the energy requirements of “ai” are very real and more importantly the massive amount of investment and obsession with ai is specifically because of the moat that the insane energy requirements creates. Corporations have zero interest in an ai technology that is efficient and doesn’t require gargantuan energy requirements, it would be antithetical towards the strategic aims of these large technology companies.

    The energy efficiency of traditional search engines was always a severe liability for google, ai solves that issue or at least they have convinced themselves it does.

    …which isn’t to say you are wrong but the atrocious energy efficiency of ai is very very real.