546
Google’s carbon emissions soar by 48% due to AI
(www.climateaction.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
546 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
926 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The answer is nuclear power.
Or how about cutting back on the idiotic and venal misuse of poorly-developed AI?
The technology is promising, it's just not remotely ready for what they're trying to use it for, and may never be in its current iteration (transformer-based LLMs). Like, yes, an AI will probably eventually be able to read many articles from search and integrate that information together in a useful way, but right now it's almost as likely to just start making shit up halfway through and tell you to eat glue lmao.
The problem is that AI is the new corporate buzzword like web was back during the dot com bubble. The web did end up being massively successful, but it just wasn't ready for like 90% of what investors wanted from it back then.
Exactly what I meant by poorly-developed.
there are still going to be a lot of people who need power though. Cutting the US of AI isn't going to magically remove coal plants from the grid, it's going to do nothing actually. We need to be building new plants, period.
We need to be transitioning to zero carbon as fast as possible, period, and even that isn't good enough. Moderating our energy consumption is vital. There is a cliff at the end of the road and business as usual means driving on down the road.
I am not saying that we need to turn off our lights and heating. I am saying that we first-worlders use a lot of power on frivolous things that we absolutely can live without.
i don't fundamentally disagree with you, but you need to recognize this includes a global perspective. You think china is going to 1/10th is electricity consumption in 20 years? Fuck no.
You think russia is going to do this? It probably won't entirely out of spite for NATO.
we can focus on this in america, locally, but we need to be in a position to be capable of doing it first. Notably, having a green grid would be a good start. Or at least, an increasingly green grid, which we do currently have, though not to a massively significant degree.
Also, i didn't realize i had such a good oneliner "The US of AI" what a fucking statement lmao. I'm sure i meant this as "removing AI from the US" but it sounds funnier the other way.
I think it's unfair to call it poorly-developed, the rush to market it and apply it in every corner is driven entirely by capitalist speculation, the engineers and scientists working on developing these systems are not to blame
Are you happier with "inadequately-developed"?
In both cases I was referring to the fact we're letting the equivalent of a toddler run amok while being exploited by greedy capitalists and trained by fascists. It's a very smart toddler but that just makes things worse.
oh yes I'm not excited about humans being replaced by bias amplifying machines with corporate morals
Environmentalism aside, I think it's shitty that a company can waste so much energy on frivolous things anyway. Even if we were using more nuclear I still wouldn't want it going to generating more porn of three-breasted women
Why did you pick the one positive use of AI?
Or at least not decommissioning old ones. A dollar invested into new solar or wind goes further than new nuclear right now, but we'll see if it tips more towards nuclear once the grid is a higher percentage intermittent and needs a lot more energy storage with it.
Modular nuclear reactors seem really cool though for replacing large long term generators like at construction or excavation sites.
a lot of older nuclear plants were built in the 70s and 80s and those plants are going to be EOL even with extensions, unless we're going to extend the lifecycle of those a second time. They should probably be decommissioned, unfortunately.
I obviously don't know all the cases, but if extending the life a second time is cost comparable to renewables, yes we absolutely should do it.
i think comparing nuclear to renewables is irresponsible at face value. Nuclear energy and renewables pair together extremely well, and i feel as if we should be building nuclear to satisfy the hard challenges of renewables, while building renewables to augment nuclear.
Nuclear is a base load power plant, of which nothing but very few hydro plants are capable of accomplishing, most nuclear plants have an extremely high capacity factor, i've even seen some operating at 100%+ Solar pairs extremely well with residential cooling throughout the summer, providing cheap power when most needed. While also pairing reasonably well with heating in the winter, since you want it colder at night anyway. Though you would have a relatively low draw in the morning heating up your home throughout the day until the evening when you stop heating it, or possibly even earlier.
The main reason i mentioned a second extension is that im not sure its even possible, legally speaking it would have to be approved, and they've already approved one extension, so it might very well be "EOL, legally speaking" by now.
Nuclear plants almost alleviate energy storage problems with renewables, if not alleviate, because most nuclear plants (modern ones) also have some capacity of thermal battery, meaning they can operate some level of peaking. (more than likely just using it for augmenting renewables though)
They are extremely expensive to build, however, that makes them very apt for subsidies and government spending. It's also relatively insured power production after having been built, considering that you can run them for 30 years, minimum. Maintenance costs are relatively high, but modern plants are a lot simper than they used to be, and i've seen pretty reasonable price estimates out of designs like the SSR, though they have the downside of not existing yet.
It seems like the future of nuclear reactors is going to be either, molten salt pool reactors, or molten metal type pool reactors. Either using lead or a eutectic mixture of lead and bismuth. Like russia is currently developing.