5 ms·

The environmental story about AI is extremely boring and I wish it would stop being brought up. Every technological development since the industrial revolution

The environmental story about AI is extremely boring and I wish it would stop being brought up. Every technological development since the industrial revolution has increased human demand for energy in some way. It's only the environmental movement, which actively shut down nuclear power plants, which wants human energy consumption to be reduced for cultish reasons. If we'd ignored anti-nuclear activists in the 70s none of this would be a problem.

apeescape 1y ago
At least some of the anti-nuclear movement back then was directed against old and unsafe nuclear plants, and for good reason. These activists achieved their goal, as modern plants are very safe. AFAICT, modern day anti-nuclear movement is a bit different to that.
funnym0nk3y 1y ago
Yeah, but the nuclear waste would be a problem. The cost would be a problem too. I don't get why some people won't get that nuclear is not the solution to the energy problem. Nuclear is one of the most expensive energy sources, and that's without the cost of long term storage of burnt fuel. Without the cost of health issues in mining areas. The call for energy consumption reduction is not "for cultish reasons", it's because of climate change that's already screwing us.
- fragmede 1y ago
  why is the cost a problem in and of itself?
  - funnym0nk3y 1y ago
    Because cost is an incentive to do or not to do things. You know, not everyone can have everything.
  - lawn 1y ago
    Many environmentalists revert back to criticizing nuclear based on cost but if they really put the environment first that should logically not be a big deal for them.
    - bmicraft 1y ago
      If they'd pushed nuclear then whatever monetary support they could win over for their cause would reach a lot shorter.
    - oezi 1y ago
      Efficiently solving the climate crisis is the biggest challenge for humanity right now. Even though it is projected to just cost 4% of GDP for the next 30 years, it is still very challenging for market economies to achieve (I think primarily because the negative impacts are global not local).
- lawn 1y ago
  It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough. They're great in many ways, but they alone won't provide enough power and stability. So you're left with water power (which is only applicable in few areas and they destroy the nature), coal/oil/gas (which are much worse for the environment) and nuclear energy. Nuclear might not solve everything itself either, but it's definitely part of the solution.
  - energy123 1y ago
    > It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough Often repeated but untrue. There have been studies that compare the total cost including all storage and transmission requirements and found that nuclear is still much more expensive.
  - funnym0nk3y 1y ago
    Which is a myth. Renewables can in fact supply most requirements if they are coupled with battery storage. Then the price would be cheaper than nuclear still. Also, natural gas is much much better than coal for the environment. And more responsive too so dark and calm times can be handled as well. So, why are we not doing it? Lobbyism, lock in, politics, nimby.
    - scuderiaseb 1y ago
      Batteries are the most expensive parts on EVs, they're heavy, require rare-earth metals and they wear out. So not an ideal solution. Would be pretty cool to have the EV batteries on cars hooked up to the electric infrastructure and handle the offset and also charging them when there is too much power in the grid.
      - chneu 1y ago
        Battery recycling is a thing
      - hattmall 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- WithinReason 1y ago
  Cost of nuclear is high due to low investment.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    You do know that nuclear power peaked at almost 20% of the global electricity mix in the 1990s? How many trillions should we hand out to the nuclear industry to try ”scale”?!?!?
dgb23 1y ago
„Cultish reasons“? I agree with you on the technical part. We would likely be in better shape if we advanced more in this area and built more power plants. But to dismiss environmentalists like this is a bit simplistic. Remember how long it took for climate change issues to establish in the mainstream? Corporations and political groups have been fighting and suppressing these issues since the start. We still don’t have serious discussions about this in large portions of society. In a more ideal world, nuclear would have been continously integrated and improved to a larger degree. But that would have required for serious discussion in the first place.
oezi 1y ago
The pro-nuclear cult is certainly irritating. Still stuck on a technology which can't help us much in the current climate predicament (too slow to build, too expensive) and which we repeatedly failed to manage. The environmental movement isn't in charge. The world community (through mostly democratic elected governments) has decided to reduce emmissions to Net Zero, not energy usage.
- hn_throw2025 1y ago
  > too slow to build, too expensive …and the green movement don’t realise they’re being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel industries, who have been using this attack line for decades because they didn’t want the competition. If you keep putting off building because it’s “too slow to build”, then guess what - it never gets built. Would you care to try to reconcile “too expensive” with “you can’t put a price on the planet”? And nice try with the democratic angle, but the truth more like we have a growing world population with a growing need for abundant, reliable, affordable energy. And yet we’re held hostage by the luxury beliefs of a tiny minority who feel they have a right to govern and want to bask in their perceived virtue.
  - AnotherGoodName 1y ago
    Too slow to build when you extrapolate growth and cost reductions in solar, wind and batteries which seems very reasonable. As in by the time it’s built it won’t be worth running. The CSIRO is Australian government funded and did a cost analysis: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Electricity-transition/GenCost/FAQ-GenCost https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Ele... Tldr nuclear is not worth building anymore. In fact they recommended no other power sources are worth building at this point given solar and winds cost effectiveness and the cost of batteries right now. This doesn't come from a climate angle. It’s pure economics.
- benterix 1y ago
  > The pro-nuclear cult is certainly irritating. Still stuck on a technology which can't help us much in the current climate predicament (too slow to build, too expensive) and which we repeatedly failed to manage. An important point is that while we can and should maximize renewable sources as dominating energy sources, we still need stable backup for fluctuations - for days where there is little wind and little sun. We don't yet have practical energy storage technologies that would allow us to eliminate this problem.
wallaBBB 1y ago
> If we'd ignored anti-nuclear activists in the 70s none of this would be a problem. Lemmi rephrase this for you: If we ignored anti-nuclear activities funded by big-oil in the 70s this would not be a problem. Yes! and if we ignored all the destructive FUD surrounding climate change they have been doing for more than 50 years we would be better off. Furthermore, if we stop ignoring the destruction AI hype is doing to the climate we will be better off.
thefz 1y ago
It's a cost-benefit discussion, should we really boil the oceans so you can show yourself as a Ghibli cartoon to your friends and be relevant for 3 minutes?
- elpocko 1y ago
  We boil the oceans much faster so you can play the latest Call of Duty.
  - thefz 1y ago
    I don't do either
elpocko 1y ago
Using the environmental impact of AI as an argument against AI is ridiculous because AI currently consumes at least an order of magnitude less energy than, say, the computer games industry, which is of no concern apparently.

apeescape 1y ago

At least some of the anti-nuclear movement back then was directed against old and unsafe nuclear plants, and for good reason. These activists achieved their goal, as modern plants are very safe. AFAICT, modern day anti-nuclear movement is a bit different to that.

funnym0nk3y 1y ago

Yeah, but the nuclear waste would be a problem. The cost would be a problem too. I don't get why some people won't get that nuclear is not the solution to the energy problem. Nuclear is one of the most expensive energy sources, and that's without the cost of long term storage of burnt fuel. Without the cost of health issues in mining areas. The call for energy consumption reduction is not "for cultish reasons", it's because of climate change that's already screwing us.

fragmede 1y ago
why is the cost a problem in and of itself?
- funnym0nk3y 1y ago
  Because cost is an incentive to do or not to do things. You know, not everyone can have everything.
- lawn 1y ago
  Many environmentalists revert back to criticizing nuclear based on cost but if they really put the environment first that should logically not be a big deal for them.
  - bmicraft 1y ago
    If they'd pushed nuclear then whatever monetary support they could win over for their cause would reach a lot shorter.
  - oezi 1y ago
    Efficiently solving the climate crisis is the biggest challenge for humanity right now. Even though it is projected to just cost 4% of GDP for the next 30 years, it is still very challenging for market economies to achieve (I think primarily because the negative impacts are global not local).
lawn 1y ago
It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough. They're great in many ways, but they alone won't provide enough power and stability. So you're left with water power (which is only applicable in few areas and they destroy the nature), coal/oil/gas (which are much worse for the environment) and nuclear energy. Nuclear might not solve everything itself either, but it's definitely part of the solution.
- energy123 1y ago
  > It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough Often repeated but untrue. There have been studies that compare the total cost including all storage and transmission requirements and found that nuclear is still much more expensive.
- funnym0nk3y 1y ago
  Which is a myth. Renewables can in fact supply most requirements if they are coupled with battery storage. Then the price would be cheaper than nuclear still. Also, natural gas is much much better than coal for the environment. And more responsive too so dark and calm times can be handled as well. So, why are we not doing it? Lobbyism, lock in, politics, nimby.
  - scuderiaseb 1y ago
    Batteries are the most expensive parts on EVs, they're heavy, require rare-earth metals and they wear out. So not an ideal solution. Would be pretty cool to have the EV batteries on cars hooked up to the electric infrastructure and handle the offset and also charging them when there is too much power in the grid.
    - chneu 1y ago
      Battery recycling is a thing
    - hattmall 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
WithinReason 1y ago
Cost of nuclear is high due to low investment.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  You do know that nuclear power peaked at almost 20% of the global electricity mix in the 1990s? How many trillions should we hand out to the nuclear industry to try ”scale”?!?!?

dgb23 1y ago

„Cultish reasons“? I agree with you on the technical part. We would likely be in better shape if we advanced more in this area and built more power plants. But to dismiss environmentalists like this is a bit simplistic. Remember how long it took for climate change issues to establish in the mainstream? Corporations and political groups have been fighting and suppressing these issues since the start. We still don’t have serious discussions about this in large portions of society. In a more ideal world, nuclear would have been continously integrated and improved to a larger degree. But that would have required for serious discussion in the first place.

oezi 1y ago

The pro-nuclear cult is certainly irritating. Still stuck on a technology which can't help us much in the current climate predicament (too slow to build, too expensive) and which we repeatedly failed to manage. The environmental movement isn't in charge. The world community (through mostly democratic elected governments) has decided to reduce emmissions to Net Zero, not energy usage.

hn_throw2025 1y ago
> too slow to build, too expensive …and the green movement don’t realise they’re being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel industries, who have been using this attack line for decades because they didn’t want the competition. If you keep putting off building because it’s “too slow to build”, then guess what - it never gets built. Would you care to try to reconcile “too expensive” with “you can’t put a price on the planet”? And nice try with the democratic angle, but the truth more like we have a growing world population with a growing need for abundant, reliable, affordable energy. And yet we’re held hostage by the luxury beliefs of a tiny minority who feel they have a right to govern and want to bask in their perceived virtue.
- AnotherGoodName 1y ago
  Too slow to build when you extrapolate growth and cost reductions in solar, wind and batteries which seems very reasonable. As in by the time it’s built it won’t be worth running. The CSIRO is Australian government funded and did a cost analysis: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Electricity-transition/GenCost/FAQ-GenCost https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Ele... Tldr nuclear is not worth building anymore. In fact they recommended no other power sources are worth building at this point given solar and winds cost effectiveness and the cost of batteries right now. This doesn't come from a climate angle. It’s pure economics.
benterix 1y ago
> The pro-nuclear cult is certainly irritating. Still stuck on a technology which can't help us much in the current climate predicament (too slow to build, too expensive) and which we repeatedly failed to manage. An important point is that while we can and should maximize renewable sources as dominating energy sources, we still need stable backup for fluctuations - for days where there is little wind and little sun. We don't yet have practical energy storage technologies that would allow us to eliminate this problem.

wallaBBB 1y ago

> If we'd ignored anti-nuclear activists in the 70s none of this would be a problem. Lemmi rephrase this for you: If we ignored anti-nuclear activities funded by big-oil in the 70s this would not be a problem. Yes! and if we ignored all the destructive FUD surrounding climate change they have been doing for more than 50 years we would be better off. Furthermore, if we stop ignoring the destruction AI hype is doing to the climate we will be better off.

thefz 1y ago

It's a cost-benefit discussion, should we really boil the oceans so you can show yourself as a Ghibli cartoon to your friends and be relevant for 3 minutes?

elpocko 1y ago
We boil the oceans much faster so you can play the latest Call of Duty.
- thefz 1y ago
  I don't do either

elpocko 1y ago

Using the environmental impact of AI as an argument against AI is ridiculous because AI currently consumes at least an order of magnitude less energy than, say, the computer games industry, which is of no concern apparently.