4 ms·

Perhaps we just shouldn't do this? The environmental impact of AI is already huge and we have an uncertain energy future.

by baz00 3y ago

graphe 3y ago
Why not? By that logic, humans are a much larger impact and we should depopulate them.
sp332 3y ago
This reduces the environmental impact of AI, and they can use the power plants to power something else in the future.
KMnO4 3y ago
Or perhaps we should. Right now, an unprecedented amount of money is being raised for AI. If we can somehow turn that into green energy, that’s a big win for the planet. Those nuclear plants will be around a lot longer than the AI “gold rush”.
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
No. We should do more like this if “we have an uncertain energy future”.
RugnirViking 3y ago
I don't understand? > The environmental impact of AI is already huge and we have an uncertain energy future. This seems like an argument FOR them doing what they're proposing.
nuz 3y ago
Innovation is the only way we'll get out of this. Sitting on our asses consuming food for no innovation and a culture of shutting down any attempt like that will only make things worse. This is a good tradeoff for the environmental cost and risks which nuclear brings (which isn't even large).
sofixa 3y ago
On the contrary, nuclear power is the greenest energy generation source (in terms of CO2/kWh over the full lifecycle), by far. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Unless you consider the CO2 emitted while you wait for the nuclear plant to come online and displace fossil fuels. Lifecycle emissions also assume all the parts are being made with current energy mix. In the zero fossil fuel future, where is the CO2 emission for PV coming from? Concrete production? PV uses much less concrete than nuclear per levelized unit of power.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Panels don’t spring from the ether. From mining the silica and other materials that go into PV, to transporting it, refining it, transporting it again, manufacturing the panel and transporting them again across the world (since this all happens in Asia). I too am surprised by the claim that nuclear outperforms its way better and I’m a strong believer that nuclear is the only thing that can get us closer to net 0 than any other. Here’s a link comparing lifecycle co2 and it does show that nuclear is better: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - vlovich123 3y ago
        You realize we’re nowhere near decarbonizing the manufacturing sector and the related transportation right? Like probably not even 2075. Think diesel trucks, diesel excavators, diesel power tools, diesel boats, etc etc. You have to take the world as it is not as you’d like it to be. You also mention the time spent waiting for nuclear to come online but fail to consider that PV has consistently failed to reduce fossil fuel usage (in absolute or percentage numbers) even as the market share of it has skyrocketed. That would indicate that at best solar panels are helping offset energy growth from using fossil fuels although in practice it’s more likely that it’s been eating market share from things like biomass and other alternative fuels. Sure in some hypothetical future it might be a lot less. But notice how you complain about not factoring in the manufacturing time of a nuclear plant in terms of lifetime CO2 emissions but then conveniently ignore the time we’d need to supplant those same co2 emissions with solar + batteries? That’s a terribly bad faith argument. Also more PV installations don’t help get us to true net 0 because some manufacturing needs such high levels of heat that they collocate with power plants that generate heat (fossil fuels or nuclear). Not to mention what do you with boats? I’m pretty sure we’d need nuclear on shipping boats to get rid of that massive amount of CO2. PV and wind power plants can’t help with that either. There’s some talk about electrifying the ports but best case attached solar in ports will be used to get to net 0 while at port (but still massive emitters during transit). Lifecycle emissions today definitely matter because we have to build a realistic trajectory. And in 2050 when PVs have failed to help us achieve net 0 the argument will come up again “oh but now nuclear is too expensive / takes too long to build” etc. we should be investing in and building nuclear power aggressively not continuing to put our eggs in the perennial disappointment that is PV power plants.

Perhaps we just shouldn't do this? The environmental impact of AI is already huge and we have an uncertain energy future.

by baz00 3y ago

Perhaps we just shouldn't do this? The environmental impact of AI is already huge and we have an uncertain energy future.

graphe 3y ago

Why not? By that logic, humans are a much larger impact and we should depopulate them.

sp332 3y ago

This reduces the environmental impact of AI, and they can use the power plants to power something else in the future.

KMnO4 3y ago

Or perhaps we should. Right now, an unprecedented amount of money is being raised for AI. If we can somehow turn that into green energy, that’s a big win for the planet. Those nuclear plants will be around a lot longer than the AI “gold rush”.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

No. We should do more like this if “we have an uncertain energy future”.

RugnirViking 3y ago

I don't understand? > The environmental impact of AI is already huge and we have an uncertain energy future. This seems like an argument FOR them doing what they're proposing.

nuz 3y ago

Innovation is the only way we'll get out of this. Sitting on our asses consuming food for no innovation and a culture of shutting down any attempt like that will only make things worse. This is a good tradeoff for the environmental cost and risks which nuclear brings (which isn't even large).

sofixa 3y ago

On the contrary, nuclear power is the greenest energy generation source (in terms of CO2/kWh over the full lifecycle), by far. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

pfdietz 3y ago
Unless you consider the CO2 emitted while you wait for the nuclear plant to come online and displace fossil fuels. Lifecycle emissions also assume all the parts are being made with current energy mix. In the zero fossil fuel future, where is the CO2 emission for PV coming from? Concrete production? PV uses much less concrete than nuclear per levelized unit of power.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Panels don’t spring from the ether. From mining the silica and other materials that go into PV, to transporting it, refining it, transporting it again, manufacturing the panel and transporting them again across the world (since this all happens in Asia). I too am surprised by the claim that nuclear outperforms its way better and I’m a strong believer that nuclear is the only thing that can get us closer to net 0 than any other. Here’s a link comparing lifecycle co2 and it does show that nuclear is better: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      You realize we’re nowhere near decarbonizing the manufacturing sector and the related transportation right? Like probably not even 2075. Think diesel trucks, diesel excavators, diesel power tools, diesel boats, etc etc. You have to take the world as it is not as you’d like it to be. You also mention the time spent waiting for nuclear to come online but fail to consider that PV has consistently failed to reduce fossil fuel usage (in absolute or percentage numbers) even as the market share of it has skyrocketed. That would indicate that at best solar panels are helping offset energy growth from using fossil fuels although in practice it’s more likely that it’s been eating market share from things like biomass and other alternative fuels. Sure in some hypothetical future it might be a lot less. But notice how you complain about not factoring in the manufacturing time of a nuclear plant in terms of lifetime CO2 emissions but then conveniently ignore the time we’d need to supplant those same co2 emissions with solar + batteries? That’s a terribly bad faith argument. Also more PV installations don’t help get us to true net 0 because some manufacturing needs such high levels of heat that they collocate with power plants that generate heat (fossil fuels or nuclear). Not to mention what do you with boats? I’m pretty sure we’d need nuclear on shipping boats to get rid of that massive amount of CO2. PV and wind power plants can’t help with that either. There’s some talk about electrifying the ports but best case attached solar in ports will be used to get to net 0 while at port (but still massive emitters during transit). Lifecycle emissions today definitely matter because we have to build a realistic trajectory. And in 2050 when PVs have failed to help us achieve net 0 the argument will come up again “oh but now nuclear is too expensive / takes too long to build” etc. we should be investing in and building nuclear power aggressively not continuing to put our eggs in the perennial disappointment that is PV power plants.