Tech bosses think nuclear fusion is the solution to AI’s energy demands – here’s what they’re missing
theconversation.com
Nuclear fusion can’t produce net energy, so is it really a solution to AI’s growing energy demands?

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.

    • Etterra@lemmy.worldEnglish
      131·
      2 months ago

      “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.

      • mwguy@infosec.pubEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        We’ve already paid for it though. That’s why we built Yucca Mountain.

      • x00z@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        Are you talking about the USA? Because I don’t see this mentality much outside of it.

        But yeah, make it a law and force them.

        • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          At least in Germany it’s the same. It gets ignored in the discussions concerning nuclear exit but it’s actually the main reason why I’m not aggressively against it: we have save areas for nuclear storage but those fight bitterly to not have it. The areas which are currently used are… Not good. Paying someone else (such as Finland) is out of budget for both state and energy companies. The latter anyway want to do the running but not the maintenance and the building, state should pay for that.

          It’s really white sad for me. The (true) statement that the dangerous waste needs to be stored carefully got corrupted to “it can’t be stored”.

    • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
      71·
      2 months ago

      Maybe Tom Scott should make a video about the Asse salt mine. It’s where the “yellow barrel == nuclear waste” meme comes from look here a picture.

      This stuff is the driving factor behind nuclear energy being a political no-go in Germany: We just don’t trust anyone, including ourselves, to do it properly. Sufficiently failure-proof humans have yet to be invented. Then, aside from that: Fission is expensive AF, and that’s before considering that they don’t have to pay for their own insurance because no insurance company would take on the contract.

      Fusion OTOH has progressed to a point where it’s actually around the corner, when the Max Planck institute is spinning out a company to commercialise it you know it’s the real deal. And they did.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      It’s also not as if there are not other nuclear power stations in existence. There is plenty of storage capacity as you say.

      This is just the standard hating everything tech companies do because, AI equals bad