113
For a Thing That Will Supposedly Fix the Climate, AI Sure Needs a Lot of Fossil Fuels
(www.splinter.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
113 points (95.2% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5387 readers
493 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OR..."and that's why we don't need AI"
In domain-specific applications, yeah, agree. But building massive datacenters so randos on the internet can ask it to draw a picture of the Spice Girls if they were all anthropomorphic top-hats is a waste of resources, IMO lol.
Ok but… now I wanna see that.
lol, right? Alas, some things are best left to the imagination.
The same thought can be applied to gaming. It's just an another convenient scape goat for the oil industry.
and it only needed the power supply of Germany to do it.
Plants that take ten years to build don’t seem like a very good response to a boom that measures dataceneter build time in months and will probably collapse in a year or two as hype is replaced by the reality of the technology. Battery backed solar and wind on the other hand are both cheaper, and can be built faster than the ‘AI’ datacenters they are ment to power.
Don’t get me wrong, I think nuclear power is important to the energy transition, and will find its use in certain use cases like large scale marine transport or places near the artic circle, but the window to build it was 1970 to 2010. At a point when the biggest thing slowing down green energy if finding financing for it, it makes sense to go with the lowest cost option available, which is battery backed solar.
10 years is unrealistic, today it's closer to 15 years. Both time frames would be too late. Doesn't matter either way though since the US elections. The world is not going to be able to compensate for the US emissions under Trump's fascism when we were already on our way to 3 degrees globally BEFORE that.
Plants take 10 year to build because of a purposely complicated burocratic process. We churn out at least 1 nuclear submarines a year.
Edit: I still think you're right, renewables and batteries are cheaper than nuclear in most first world countries, but the building process doesn't have to be that long.
No, we already needed nuclear power.
Why is this even downvoted?