this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
627 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

58697 readers
4663 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] leds@feddit.dk 20 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

AI seems perfect for renewables load balancing. Got extra power to burn because it is windy at night? Train your models

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mandy@sh.itjust.works 52 points 1 day ago

Cyberpunk dystopias weren't supposed to be guidelines dammit

[–] ownsauce@lemmy.world 60 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

The article mentions Kairos Power but doesn't mention that their reactors in development are molten-salt cooled. While they'll still use Uranium, its a great step in the right direction for safer nuclear power.

If development continues on this path with thorium molten-salt fueled and cooled reactors, we could see safe and commercially viable nuclear (thorium) energy within our lifetimes.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-06/china-building-thorium-nuclear-power-station-gobi/104304468

To my layman's knowledge, using thorium molten-salt instead of uranium means the reactor can be designed in a way where it can't melt down like Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Edit: The other implication of not using uranium is that the leftover material is harder to make in to bombs, so the technology around molten-salt thorium reactors could be spread to current non-nuclear states to meet their energy needs and reduce reliance on coal plants around the planet.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If development continues on this path

If we continue down the path of wasting energy and polluting to produce useless shit humanity is screwed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Growing from a broad research effort at U.S. universities and national laboratories, Kairos Power was founded to accelerate the development of an innovative nuclear technology ...

Kairos Power is focused on reducing technical risk through a novel approach to test iteration often lacking in the nuclear space. Our schedule is driven by the goal of a U.S. demonstration plant before 2030 and a rapid deployment thereafter. The challenge is great, but so too is the opportunity.

So basically academics finding people to fund a large scale lab experiment, they want to get working by 2030. It sounds like they sold Google on an idea (for funding) and now have to move their idea from the lab to the real world. It does sound safer than water cooled plants of old at least.

[–] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is good news, relatively speaking.

SMR technology is one of the most promising pieces of technological development in the nuclear power space.

Standardized factory production and completely sealed, so refueling is only at the factory, never on-site. Their also, small, but scalable depending on the needs of each site.

I'm not sure of the design this company is using, but I'm assuming they're leveraging a fail safe reactor, as in, it requires properly running systems to generate fission, but if those systems fail, the fission process stops. There are no secondary systems that have to kick in, it's a simple as either it's running properly, or it can't run it all.

As opposed to systems like Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island, that required separate active safety systems to guard against catastrophic failures. But if those failed, they're backups failed, etc., well, meltdown.

[–] xnx@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

So um. What happens when the white supremacists attacking FEMA and electrical grids starts attacking these nuclear reactors?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago

Thank goodness we can now get a little nuclear waste with our cat pics.

[–] lulztard@reddthat.com 184 points 1 day ago (4 children)
[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 92 points 1 day ago (6 children)

We're living in a cyberpunk nightmare

[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Not yet we're not!

Still plenty of nature to kill before humanity cannot survive in any capacity without corpo supply chains.

If you're breathing free air, drinking real water, and actual food can grow out of the ground we're comparably in cyber paradise given how much worse AI spycraft and corporate ownership will worsen everything exponentially for the non-connected over the next decades

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 0 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Could NOT get the nuclear power plant in Georgia off the ground for how long?

Did it ever get finished?

But when corporate wants it just fucking happens 🤡

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Businesses generating their own power is not anything new. The big auto manufacturers used to do it back in the day, and if you scale down the concept, every windmill (the grain grinding kind) and waterwheel built and operated for profit is the same thing. I'm just happy that Google is seemingly having their own built, instead of getting taxpayers to build it for them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 131 points 1 day ago (20 children)

Crazy how quickly we've gone from "Nuclear is a dead technology, it can't work and its simply too expensive to build more of. Y'all have to use fossil fuels instead" to "We're building nuclear plants as quickly as our contractors can draft them, but only for doing experiments in high end algorithmic brute-forcing".

Would be nice if some of that dirt-cheap, low-emission, industrial capacity electricity was available for the rest of us.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

One of the things with AI is that it's a largely constant load factor. Nuclear is really good for that.

However, I highly doubt any of these new nuclear plants are finished before the AI bubble bursts. SMRs haven't even been proven in practice yet, and this is the first good news they've had in a while. Restarting Three Mile Island isn't expected to work before 2028. The hype bubble could easily burst in the next year, and even if it doesn't, keeping it going to 2028 is highly unlikely.

So we'll probably have some new nuclear around that isn't going into AI, because those datacenters will be dead when the hype passes. Might as well use them, I guess.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

You don't think there's any chance that AI as it exists today might be just the start of a huge industry?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

As it exists now, no. The models are reaching their limit, and they aren't good enough. They can't absorb any more information than they have, and more training iterations aren't making them better. They'll do some useful things; a recent find of the longest black hole jet ever found was done in part from AI classification of astronomy data. It's going to get implemented into existing tools and that's about it. It won't be enough to justify the money that's already been dumped in.

Historically, the field has been very bursty. Lots of money gets dumped into it, it makes some big improvements, and then hits a wall. Funding dries up because it's not meeting goals anymore, and the whole thing goes into slumber for a decade or two. A new breakthrough eventually comes, and then money gets dumped in again. We've about maxed out what the last breakthrough can give us. I expect we'll need at least one more cycle of this before AGI works out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 61 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fun Times! Because everyone pays for the waste and when something goes wrong. Privatizing Profits while Socializing Losses. The core motor of capitalism.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (18 children)

The cleanup for fossil fuels is an order of magnitude more expensive, and an order of magnitude more difficult. It also impacts so many things that its true cost is impossible to calculate.

I'm aware of the issues with nuclear, but for a lot of places it's the only low/zero emission tech we can do until we have a serious improvement in batteries.

Very few countries can have a large stable base load of renewable energy. Not every country has the geography for dams (which have their own massive ecological and environmental impacts) or geothermal energy.

Seriously, we need to cut emissions now. So what's the option that anti-nuclear people want? Continue to use fossil fuels and hope battery tech gets good enough, then expand renewables? That will take decades. Probably 30+ years at the minimum.

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nuclear should only be done by the state. Any commercial company doing nuclear HAS TO CARE FOR THE WASTE. It has to be in the calculation, but no on ecan guarantee 10000 years of anything. Same with fossils... execute the fossil fuel industry. They destroyed so much, they don't deserve to earn a single cent.

That funky startup is producing waste. Imagine a startup selling Asbestos as the new hot shit in 2024.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

It's almost like the brand spanking new tech to make small nuclear reactors are extremely cost prohibitive and risky, and to lower the cost someone needs to spend money to increase supply.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 68 points 1 day ago (4 children)

At last, we'll be seeing nuclear reactors being created using Agile! Fail early, fail often, hopefully don't kill everyone!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 51 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

For some reason this doesn't feel like good news.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›