[tompccs]

The environmental story about AI is extremely boring and I wish it would stop being brought up.

Every technological development since the industrial revolution has increased human demand for energy in some way. It's only the environmental movement, which actively shut down nuclear power plants, which wants human energy consumption to be reduced for cultish reasons.

If we'd ignored anti-nuclear activists in the 70s none of this would be a problem.

[oezi]

The pro-nuclear cult is certainly irritating. Still stuck on a technology which can't help us much in the current climate predicament (too slow to build, too expensive) and which we repeatedly failed to manage.

The environmental movement isn't in charge. The world community (through mostly democratic elected governments) has decided to reduce emmissions to Net Zero, not energy usage.

[benterix]

> The pro-nuclear cult is certainly irritating. Still stuck on a technology which can't help us much in the current climate predicament (too slow to build, too expensive) and which we repeatedly failed to manage.

An important point is that while we can and should maximize renewable sources as dominating energy sources, we still need stable backup for fluctuations - for days where there is little wind and little sun. We don't yet have practical energy storage technologies that would allow us to eliminate this problem.

[bmicraft]

Nuclear is so expensive to build that it has to run 24/7. If you decide to only run it a couple hours a week lighting stacks of cash on fire would be more efficient economically.

It doesn't at all fit into a renewable model where you only sometimes need extra energy. If you want to get a way from gas peaker plants then you have to "over-provision" renewable.

[scuderiaseb]

The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. What is your solution then, burn coal and oil? Nuclear has a great role to fill the gap reliably.

[ViewTrick1002]

Have you heard of this thing called batteries?

You know, those that lately achieved the milestone in California of being the largest producer from sundown to midnight in terms of GWh.

What is it with the nuclear cult and this false dichotomy?

Is it because you need to justify spending 10x as much money on new built nuclear power coming online in the 2040s, which is too late to solve anything relevant?

Nuclear power is the worst ”peaker” imaginable.

Lets calculate running Vogtle at a 10-15% capacity factor like a traditional fossil gas peaker.

The electricity now costs $1-1.5/kWh. That is Texas grid meltdown prices. That is what you are yearning for.

[koonsolo]

Real question, because I'm not an expert on this. Both solar panels and batteries don't last forever. Has anyone done the calculation on the environmental impact of solar panels and batteries, both production and recycling, vs nuclear power plants.

What is the environment impact for each, per watt?

[ViewTrick1002]

They can be recycled. Nuclear fuel requires a continuous input of uranium.

Generally these questions are centered around people trying to justify nuclear power by relying on the "long life". Thinking they will still be useful on the market in 100 years time.

For both batteries and solar panels if lifetime is the most central issue you can optimize for that. There are solar panels with 40 year warranties available and more costly batteries optimized for longer cycle life.

But the market is already choosing what to invest in. Good enough beats imaginary perfect every single time.

[oezi]

Burn gas in peaker gas plants during those times which are statistically projected to be less than 1 week per year.

[theyinwhy]

The sun does always shine, at least for the next couple of generations.

[hn_throw2025]

> too slow to build, too expensive

…and the green movement don’t realise they’re being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel industries, who have been using this attack line for decades because they didn’t want the competition.

If you keep putting off building because it’s “too slow to build”, then guess what - it never gets built.

Would you care to try to reconcile “too expensive” with “you can’t put a price on the planet”?

And nice try with the democratic angle, but the truth more like we have a growing world population with a growing need for abundant, reliable, affordable energy. And yet we’re held hostage by the luxury beliefs of a tiny minority who feel they have a right to govern and want to bask in their perceived virtue.

[AnotherGoodName]

Too slow to build when you extrapolate growth and cost reductions in solar, wind and batteries which seems very reasonable. As in by the time it’s built it won’t be worth running.

The CSIRO is Australian government funded and did a cost analysis: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Ele...

Tldr nuclear is not worth building anymore. In fact they recommended no other power sources are worth building at this point given solar and winds cost effectiveness and the cost of batteries right now. This doesn't come from a climate angle. It’s pure economics.

[funnym0nk3y]

Yeah, but the nuclear waste would be a problem. The cost would be a problem too.

I don't get why some people won't get that nuclear is not the solution to the energy problem. Nuclear is one of the most expensive energy sources, and that's without the cost of long term storage of burnt fuel. Without the cost of health issues in mining areas.

The call for energy consumption reduction is not "for cultish reasons", it's because of climate change that's already screwing us.

[WithinReason]

Cost of nuclear is high due to low investment.

[ViewTrick1002]

You do know that nuclear power peaked at almost 20% of the global electricity mix in the 1990s?

How many trillions should we hand out to the nuclear industry to try ”scale”?!?!?

[fragmede]

why is the cost a problem in and of itself?

[funnym0nk3y]

Because cost is an incentive to do or not to do things. You know, not everyone can have everything.

[lawn]

Many environmentalists revert back to criticizing nuclear based on cost but if they really put the environment first that should logically not be a big deal for them.

[oezi]

Efficiently solving the climate crisis is the biggest challenge for humanity right now. Even though it is projected to just cost 4% of GDP for the next 30 years, it is still very challenging for market economies to achieve (I think primarily because the negative impacts are global not local).

[bmicraft]

If they'd pushed nuclear then whatever monetary support they could win over for their cause would reach a lot shorter.

[lawn]

It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough. They're great in many ways, but they alone won't provide enough power and stability.

So you're left with water power (which is only applicable in few areas and they destroy the nature), coal/oil/gas (which are much worse for the environment) and nuclear energy.

Nuclear might not solve everything itself either, but it's definitely part of the solution.

[funnym0nk3y]

Which is a myth. Renewables can in fact supply most requirements if they are coupled with battery storage. Then the price would be cheaper than nuclear still.

Also, natural gas is much much better than coal for the environment. And more responsive too so dark and calm times can be handled as well.

So, why are we not doing it? Lobbyism, lock in, politics, nimby.

[scuderiaseb]

Batteries are the most expensive parts on EVs, they're heavy, require rare-earth metals and they wear out. So not an ideal solution.

Would be pretty cool to have the EV batteries on cars hooked up to the electric infrastructure and handle the offset and also charging them when there is too much power in the grid.

[hattmall]

I always liked the idea of rapidly swappable batteries, like pulling into a gas station. Then they could be charged / stored in centralized locations which act as very large batteries for the grid. Keep batteries at 90% or even less and use that amount to absorb or push energy to the grid.

[chneu]

Battery recycling is a thing

[energy123]

> It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough

Often repeated but untrue. There have been studies that compare the total cost including all storage and transmission requirements and found that nuclear is still much more expensive.

[dgb23]

„Cultish reasons“?

I agree with you on the technical part. We would likely be in better shape if we advanced more in this area and built more power plants.

But to dismiss environmentalists like this is a bit simplistic.

Remember how long it took for climate change issues to establish in the mainstream?

Corporations and political groups have been fighting and suppressing these issues since the start.

We still don’t have serious discussions about this in large portions of society.

In a more ideal world, nuclear would have been continously integrated and improved to a larger degree. But that would have required for serious discussion in the first place.

[elpocko]

Using the environmental impact of AI as an argument against AI is ridiculous because AI currently consumes at least an order of magnitude less energy than, say, the computer games industry, which is of no concern apparently.

[apeescape]

At least some of the anti-nuclear movement back then was directed against old and unsafe nuclear plants, and for good reason. These activists achieved their goal, as modern plants are very safe.

AFAICT, modern day anti-nuclear movement is a bit different to that.

[thefz]

It's a cost-benefit discussion, should we really boil the oceans so you can show yourself as a Ghibli cartoon to your friends and be relevant for 3 minutes?

[elpocko]

We boil the oceans much faster so you can play the latest Call of Duty.

[thefz]

I don't do either

[wallaBBB]

> If we'd ignored anti-nuclear activists in the 70s none of this would be a problem.

Lemmi rephrase this for you: If we ignored anti-nuclear activities funded by big-oil in the 70s this would not be a problem.

Yes! and if we ignored all the destructive FUD surrounding climate change they have been doing for more than 50 years we would be better off.

Furthermore, if we stop ignoring the destruction AI hype is doing to the climate we will be better off.