Modern AI data centers consume enormous amounts of power, and it looks like they will get even more power-hungry in the coming years as companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and OpenAI strive towards artificial general intelligence (AGI). Oracle has already outlined plans to use nuclear power plants for its 1-gigawatt datacenters. It looks like Microsoft plans to do the same as it just inked a deal to restart a nuclear power plant to feed its data centers, reports Bloomberg.

  • qarbone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 day ago

    Are we eventually gonna get more fusion because billionaires are demanding more energy for their stupid projects?

    Sure, knock yourselves out.

    • Vince@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      This is how I’m able to sleep without worrying about death, one of these billionaires has got to be funding research so they can live forever. No guarantee they’ll share but that’s at least a less dread inducing issue.

    • irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yeah, too bad there’s no long-term storage for the waste so it will mean more and more leaks polluting land for centuries since the power companies will just go bankrupt when it’s time to do anything about it like with most forms of pollution.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The amount of waste is tiny. Coal plants cause more radiation than nuclear plants because of tiny amounts of radioactive matter in coal. You need to burn so much coal the amount of radioactivity is higher per unit of energy.

        Until we shut down all coal plants we shouldn’t even think about closing nuclear plants

        • irotsoma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 minutes ago

          That’s for normal activity and it’s totally irrelevant. So these are some stats about ionizing radiation dosages:

          • Average from all sources for an average person for 1 year: 4mSv
          • Additional if living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor for 1 year: 0.09 µSv
          • Additional of living within 50 miles of a coal plant for 1 year: 0.3 µSv
          • Living within 30 km of Chernobyl before evacuation (10 days): 3-150 mSv
          • Maximum allowed dose for radiation workers over 1 year: 50mSv
          • 10 minutes next to the Chernobyl reactor after the meltdown: 50Sv
          • fatal lifetime dosage beyond our ability to treat: ~8Sv

          So, yes, nuclear power plants and storage pools are designed to shield radiation and thus during normal operation release an insignificant amount of radiation so much so that even coal burning releases a heck of a lot more.

          But both of those are extremely insignificant if you consider that living near a coal plant will only give you a tiny fraction of additional exposure as the amount of radiation you receive normally from natural sources.

          The problem is that with nuclear fission waste, a tiny leak can cause fatal amounts of exposure in a very short time. If a storage pool cracks after the 100 years or so they’re designed to last, or if a flood happens and overflows a storage pool, or a tornado picks up that storage water, or any number of other catastrophic events happen within the 10,000-1,000,000 years before that waste is safe, depending on the type, the people living nearby will likely not survive very long and that area will be contaminated for many times longer than human life has existed.

          Fukushima was a good example and had to rely on the vast Pacific ocean to disperse the radiation. Chernobyl will be unsafe for 10s of thousands of years even if the coffin is maintained for all that time.