this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
357 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

58260 readers
2980 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 33 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I don't care how they estimate their cost in dollars. I think the cost to all of us in environmental impact would be more interesting.

Assume it is equivalent to burning 200 million $ of gasoline

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Unless they're finding exciting new and efficient ways to generate electricity, I imagine its a linear comparison. Maybe some are worse than others. I know Grok's datacenter in Mississippi is relying exclusively on portable gas powered electric generators that are wrecking havoc on the local environment.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Honestly you can thank decades of anti-nuclear lobbying

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

More the plunge in O&G prices during the 1980s. Coal, oil, and natural gas got incredibly cheap under Reagan after the US cut sweetheart deals with the Saudis. Nuclear has huge upfront development costs, while oil, gas, and coal are very cheap to start up and run incredibly high margins.

Lobbying and activism had very little impact, as evidenced by the campaigns against coal waste and gas flaring and strip mining that all fell flat.

[–] downhomechunk@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Gas like natural gas? Or gas like gasoline? I'm sure it's the former, but I take nothing for granted anymore.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Methane gas isn't a fossil fuel though, and I believe it's actually better for the environment to burn it than simply release it, at least as far as global warming goes.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Methane gas isn’t a fossil fuel though

It's a primary byproduct of Y-Grade gas during fractionation. But it is also less energy dense than your pricier fuels and and lighter. If you're not using good compression you might as well be venting the fuel as fast as you burn it.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Is it? I thought they were burning landfill or swamp gas.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

You can get it there, too, but when it's already mixed with air you're forced to do the math of how much energy is in the methane versus how much it costs to distill out of the nitrogen and oxygen.

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I didn't know that; thanks for sharing.

(BTW, I think you meant wreaking havoc.)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

All my misspellings are part of my charm.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe this is the push we need to switch to nuclear. The attack is good it just needs somebody with deeper pockets than coal/gas to lobby it.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Microsoft is trying to restart Three Mile Island. But that's a very old facility. I don't see too much interest in building new ones.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Kind of. Microsoft is offering to buy the electricity and put jobs and data centers nearby, the state is reactivating the site.

If more AI companies dedicate to buying vast amounts of electricity, there's money and jobs in it

But if they eye companies start making concentrated demand, It won't people with deep pockets long to figure out how to turn up some small scale high output plants.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

If more AI companies dedicate to buying vast amounts of electricity, there’s money and jobs in it

Google the history of the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia. I don't think tech firms have 16 years to invest in new energy plants.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I want to see what the long term economic cost was after they fired tens of thousands of tech workers hoping to replace us with AI. It feels like workers are always the ones who suffer the most under capitalism.

It depends if they fire them and AI can't actually do the job, then it would suck.

If they are fired and the ai can do it, then it's great, it's like having that many new people.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

They'll fire more than that when the AI bubble busts and they stop pushing so hard into that development as it stagnates.