It’s worth noting that he also fired many of the staff who know how to ensure that they’re actually safe, as well as the staff who would approve financing.

  • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Beginning investments nuclear at this point when renewables so obviously to everyone in the know are beating them on all accounts is extremely on brand for someone as dumb as Trump

    • Vytle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      Nuclear is the single best technology humans have invented. A broken clock is right twice a day.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Being able to harness the power of atoms is cool, but directly harnessing the power of a star is arguably far cooler.

        • Lightor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          You don’t get nearly as much power and you need huge fields of panels. They are also very weather dependant. Nuclear energy is pretty clean and safe really.

          Unless we’re talking about a Dyson Sphere thingy. Now that’s powa’.

          • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            You don’t actually need to get as much power out of them - this is a benefit of a system built upon renewables. There’s far greater resilience as the power generation is spread out over more nodes, leading to less large potential points of failure. Add in distributed localized storage capacity, and you’ve got a far more sophisticated solution than one based on a few large nuclear plants.

            • Lightor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              You don’t need to get at much power? You need a certain amount of power, and even if you setup a country wide grid that can self balance, it’s is still prone to tons of issues. You then have to setup and manage storage. Issues nuclear just doesn’t have.

              The solution you’re presenting is sophisticated yes, but that’s not good. That’s more points of failure, more things that can break in the complicated system. You need to account for: weather impacts, storage imbalance and redistribution, maintaining communication between all nodes to balance, finding suitable places to build solar fields, cleaning and maintaining all those panels, having good sun tracking to get max power value, etc. Nuclear makes power and sends it, whenever needed. It’s that simple.

              • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                It’s that simple.

                That’s such a massive oversimplification of operating a nuclear power plant that I’m not quite sure there’s any more value to be had in this discussion.

      • uniquethrowagay@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nuclear doesn’t scale globally and it’s not renewable. It’s contribution to humankind’s power generation negligible and it will stay that way.

        • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          not renewable

          I mean that may be true, but the amount of easily available fuel for fission reactions is several orders of magnitude greater than that of fossil fuels.

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

          According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today’s consumption rate in total. […] First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today’s nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

          This is only for uranium-based reactors. Thorium can also be used in fission reactors and is 3 times more common than uranium.

          In 360,000 years, I’m sure we’ll find a new way to make energy. Which is to say that we’ll probably perfect fusion confinement.

          Fusion:

          https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/164282/how-much-potential-fusion-energy-is-in-earths-ocean#164291

          Some rough estimates (you can dig up more accurate numbers): The oceans contain about 321 million cubic miles of water (source: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceanwater.html), or 3.5e20 U.S. gal.

          1 gal seawater contains roughly enough deuterium to provide the same energy as 300 gal of gasoline (maybe slightly less - that’s the part for your homework!), so the oceans are equivalent to 1.1e23 gal. gasoline.

          Conversion factors: 1 gal. gasoline = 1.24e5 Btu; 1 Btu = 1055 J; 1e15 Btu = 1 quad; U.S. annual energy consumption is a little under 100 quad; world annual consumption is about 500 quad.

          So, the oceans contain about 1.3e28 Btu = 1.4e31 J of fusion fuel, which is 1.3e13 quad, which is enough to supply energy at the current rate of consumption for 26 BILLION years.

          Worrying about the amount of nuclear fuel available is about a sane as worrying about how the porch that you built on your house will affect the orbit of the Earth over the next 3 billion years. Technically it will affect things, but the timescales involved are so much longer than anything humanity deals with.

    • nuko147@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Nuclear is needed for the AI tech industry. He doesn’t give a fuck what the people need. These are pushes from META, Google, Amazon and Open-AI. But guess who is gonna pay.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        AI needs large amounts of cheap power. Nuclear does not deliver on those requirements - vast quantities of renewables would be far more suitable for this purpose. However, renewables are woke and as such Trump would never lean into them, no matter how profitable it would be.

        • nuko147@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          AI needs large amounts of reliable power (24/7 delivery). Renewables can power AI for now, but for the long run the demand is showing that expanding nuclear power is mandatory.

          There is nothing woke and shit for that. The problem is that they play with safety in nuclear power.

          • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Why would you need 24/7 delivery for AI? You can vary the load for training as much as you want, while inference can be throttled to meet energy availability. There’s nothing inherent to AI that warrants that type of power profile.

            • nuko147@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              You can not stop training that easily, it takes weeks or months of planning. Also idling hardware is bad usage of capital. Companies do not like these. They want to eliminate energy bottlenecks. Its not that AI needs it, its economics.