nuclear power produces long-lived radioactive waste, which needs to be stored securely. Nuclear fuels, such as the element uranium (which needs to be mined), are finite, so the technology is not considered renewable. Renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power suffer from “intermittency”, meaning they do not consistently produce energy at all hours of the day.
fusion technologies have yet to produce sustained net energy output (more energy than is put in to run the reactor), let alone produce energy at the scale required to meet the growing demands of AI. Fusion will require many more technological developments before it can fulfil its promise of delivering power to the grid.
They’re missing a fusion reactor capable of positive energy output?
“Tech bosses think warp drive might get us to Mars faster…”
I bet they think that wormholes are even better
I like girls’ wormholes too, but not sure they produce energy
Theyre missing the fact that cold fusion doesn’t (currently) exist? (haven’t read the article)?
They’ve seen it being always reached in computer games like Civilization
They think the hard part is in becoming the big boss to decide things. The civilization part is easy, just direct resources where you need the “cool thing completed” notification to appear.
But still right on though
Quiet!!
If the tech brows wanna dump money into developing renewable energy systems, detaching themselves from our main power grid they currently destabilize. Let them!
Maybe AI can help us break the fusion hurdles. Oh. It’s still telling people to eat rocks, just used to create waifu porn and as a mass spy application? Nothing else, really? Well shit.
Nothing else? Please do not speak for other people if you can not grasp what others do with this tool.
Tech bosses think nuclear fusion is the solution
No they don’t; this is literally the first thing I’ve ever read claiming that. Tech bosses are perfect happy to power AI with nuclear fission and don’t give the slightest fuck about the waste.
(As well they shouldn’t, TBH, since it really ought to get reprocessed anyway. But that doesn’t excuse them for wanting to waste the power on bullshit.)
Also nuclear fusion has essentially zero waste.
That turns out to not be true, at least not with the tokamak reactors most groups are pursuing.
You see, at some point you need a shield around the reactor to actually absorb all the high energy particles released, and turn that energy into heat. That’s the whole point of the reactor, to generate heat and run a turbine. You absorb those high energy particles with a “blanket”, that’s just what they call the shield around the reactor.
Here’s the issue, absorbing all those high energy particles necessarily results in transmuting the material absorbing them. That blanket becomes brittle and eventually needs to be replaced. Not coincidentally, that blanket is also now radioactive, because you’ve bombarded it with protons and neutrons and it’s now partially made up of unstable, radioactive elements.
So while fission reactors have radioactive fuel rods to dispose of, fusion reactors will have radioactive blankets to dispose of. Who knows if this is an improvement.
Who knows if this is an improvement.
The Max Planck Institute for Physics knows and spoiler, yes. Yes it is.
You see, at some point you need a shield around the reactor to actually absorb all the high energy particles released, and turn that energy into heat.
So we have to replace a few tons of shielding that’s lightly radioactive every 2-6 years. That’s literally a vehicle’s worth of waste to power tens of thousands of homes.
You’ll find that nuclear fission is not very different.
Nuclear submarines for example only need to be refueled once or twice in their multiple decade lifespan.
Yes. They’re both incredibly efficient.
And if somehow, despite that efficiency, we still have problems figuring out how to store that nuclear waste today. I know this ought to be a solvable problem, but we seem to struggle with it.
I don’t see why we are hating on the waste like this. Yes it’s very dangerous waste, but the amount is quite small, and if we store them safely, as shown in Tom Scott’s video on Nuclear Storage in Finland, it’s actually a very good solution for the time being.
“if we store them safely” - here’s the problem with the entire argument. Nobody wants to pay for it, so they won’t unless they are forced to. Carbon capture is a viable technology but it costs money to implement at a net financial loss, so nobody uses that if they don’t have to either. The problem is the same as always - nobody who stands to lose money gives a damn. The planet dying is somebody else’s concern tomorrow, and profits are their concern today.
