3 ms·

I'm glad somebody is doing it, even if it's Meta. The world really needs more energy and nuclear is a great option

by usrnm 9mo ago

sergiotapia 9mo ago
hell yeah!
dakiol 9mo ago
[flagged]
- tombert 9mo ago
  Not the OP, but I think the argument is that even if they're doing it for the wrong reasons, it might still end up being a good thing.
  - dakiol 9mo ago
    What kind of logic is that? It reminds me some people I know that vote to extreme-right parties because "well, we know that the regular parties are not gonna change anything. These new guys may do something new. Who knows, let's vote them and find out"
    - tombert 9mo ago
      Well, no, I think that the claim is that having nuclear power plants is better than not having them. If they're not sucking energy off the grid (like what is happening right now), that at least will help avoid regular people like us having to pay the increased prices and indirectly subsidizing them. And nuclear energy is clean (from a climate change perspective at least), and so if they're going to keep spending huge amounts of energy AI training anyway, it's probably better to do that in a way that isn't going to keep boiling the planet. Also, if there is any kind of excess energy then it can be fed back into the grid, meaning that grid power can be fed from something relatively clean compared to something dirty (like coal). I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the party thing. I'm saying that sometimes something selfish in a capitalistic system can occasionally still be a net good. I didn't think that was controversial. I'm not saying we give Zuckerberg a trophy or anything.
  - AnishLaddha 9mo ago
    A core assumption of capitalism is that when individuals act in their own self-interest, their actions tend to produce outcomes that are beneficial for society as a whole. This seems like a compelling piece of evidence!
    - tombert 9mo ago
      I think that's, generally speaking, not true, as evidenced by the fact that climate change is still happening almost entirely due to selfish motivations of oil companies and bribed politicians. I think it's probably a good thing in this case.
      - redleader55 9mo ago
        Yet, globally, the world is moving towards renewables regardless of big-oil interests. I don't think even the most hard core activists are expecting to close everything coal, gas and oil related overnight, so we need to wait until the energy transformation is finished. It won't be led by the US, Russia and the Middle-East, that's for sure, but it will happen.
        tombert 9mo ago
        Even if that's true, we're already facing negative consequences from climate change, and it's affecting developing countries the most. The oil companies knew about the risk of climate change in the 70's, and actively suppressed it and pushed pro-petroleum narratives instead. Certainly the selfish greedy ambitions of corrupt politicians and short-sighted corporations aren't good for the people dying and being displaced. I mean, we can play with numbers and try and argue a "greater good", sure, but it does seem a little convenient that we can act like greedy self-interests are helping everyone when there are current victims.
      - edmundsauto 9mo ago
        I think the idea behind that concept is not that it's true. The idea is we will never change human self-interest and greed. So we build systems where even with that as the primary motivation, it still has more important secondary effects that probably benefit us.
epistasis 9mo ago
As technology improves, we have less and less need for nuclear. The continent with the greatest need for nuclear is Europe, and these German grid modelers have taken a look at the EU grid with the latest data and decided that additional baseload generation (like nuclear) is not required and will likely increase costs if built: https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-physical-science/fulltext/S2666-3864(25)00649-6 https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-physical-science/fulltext/...
- jdkee 9mo ago
  Germany took it's last three nuclear reactors offline in 2023 and now the primary source of their electrical generation is coal. See https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
  - w-m 9mo ago
    That is factually incorrect. The primary source is wind at 132 TWh in 2025, followed by solar with 70 TWh. Lignite was third with 67 TWh and hard coal sits at 27 TWh. https://www.energy-charts.info/downloads/electricity_generation_germany_2025.pdf https://www.energy-charts.info/downloads/electricity_generat...
    - malfist 9mo ago
      Lignite is coal, so that'd make coal #2
  - mcbetz 9mo ago
    Official source for 2025 Q3: 64,1% renewable 20,6% coal 12% gas https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energie/Erzeugung/_inhalt.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energ...
  - fxde 9mo ago
    Your claim about current electrical generation is incorrect and obviously not supported by your source, which shows data from 2021.
lostlogin 9mo ago
Is it though? Do we need more ads and more social media company AI?

I'm glad somebody is doing it, even if it's Meta. The world really needs more energy and nuclear is a great option

by usrnm 9mo ago

I'm glad somebody is doing it, even if it's Meta. The world really needs more energy and nuclear is a great option

sergiotapia 9mo ago

hell yeah!

dakiol 9mo ago

[flagged]

tombert 9mo ago
Not the OP, but I think the argument is that even if they're doing it for the wrong reasons, it might still end up being a good thing.
- dakiol 9mo ago
  What kind of logic is that? It reminds me some people I know that vote to extreme-right parties because "well, we know that the regular parties are not gonna change anything. These new guys may do something new. Who knows, let's vote them and find out"
  - tombert 9mo ago
    Well, no, I think that the claim is that having nuclear power plants is better than not having them. If they're not sucking energy off the grid (like what is happening right now), that at least will help avoid regular people like us having to pay the increased prices and indirectly subsidizing them. And nuclear energy is clean (from a climate change perspective at least), and so if they're going to keep spending huge amounts of energy AI training anyway, it's probably better to do that in a way that isn't going to keep boiling the planet. Also, if there is any kind of excess energy then it can be fed back into the grid, meaning that grid power can be fed from something relatively clean compared to something dirty (like coal). I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the party thing. I'm saying that sometimes something selfish in a capitalistic system can occasionally still be a net good. I didn't think that was controversial. I'm not saying we give Zuckerberg a trophy or anything.
- AnishLaddha 9mo ago
  A core assumption of capitalism is that when individuals act in their own self-interest, their actions tend to produce outcomes that are beneficial for society as a whole. This seems like a compelling piece of evidence!
  - tombert 9mo ago
    I think that's, generally speaking, not true, as evidenced by the fact that climate change is still happening almost entirely due to selfish motivations of oil companies and bribed politicians. I think it's probably a good thing in this case.
    - redleader55 9mo ago
      Yet, globally, the world is moving towards renewables regardless of big-oil interests. I don't think even the most hard core activists are expecting to close everything coal, gas and oil related overnight, so we need to wait until the energy transformation is finished. It won't be led by the US, Russia and the Middle-East, that's for sure, but it will happen.
      - tombert 9mo ago
        Even if that's true, we're already facing negative consequences from climate change, and it's affecting developing countries the most. The oil companies knew about the risk of climate change in the 70's, and actively suppressed it and pushed pro-petroleum narratives instead. Certainly the selfish greedy ambitions of corrupt politicians and short-sighted corporations aren't good for the people dying and being displaced. I mean, we can play with numbers and try and argue a "greater good", sure, but it does seem a little convenient that we can act like greedy self-interests are helping everyone when there are current victims.
    - edmundsauto 9mo ago
      I think the idea behind that concept is not that it's true. The idea is we will never change human self-interest and greed. So we build systems where even with that as the primary motivation, it still has more important secondary effects that probably benefit us.

epistasis 9mo ago

As technology improves, we have less and less need for nuclear. The continent with the greatest need for nuclear is Europe, and these German grid modelers have taken a look at the EU grid with the latest data and decided that additional baseload generation (like nuclear) is not required and will likely increase costs if built: https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-physical-science/fulltext/S2666-3864(25)00649-6 https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-physical-science/fulltext/...

jdkee 9mo ago
Germany took it's last three nuclear reactors offline in 2023 and now the primary source of their electrical generation is coal. See https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
- w-m 9mo ago
  That is factually incorrect. The primary source is wind at 132 TWh in 2025, followed by solar with 70 TWh. Lignite was third with 67 TWh and hard coal sits at 27 TWh. https://www.energy-charts.info/downloads/electricity_generation_germany_2025.pdf https://www.energy-charts.info/downloads/electricity_generat...
  - malfist 9mo ago
    Lignite is coal, so that'd make coal #2
- mcbetz 9mo ago
  Official source for 2025 Q3: 64,1% renewable 20,6% coal 12% gas https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energie/Erzeugung/_inhalt.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energ...
- fxde 9mo ago
  Your claim about current electrical generation is incorrect and obviously not supported by your source, which shows data from 2021.

lostlogin 9mo ago

Is it though? Do we need more ads and more social media company AI?