I don't want a discussion on the source of genergy. Rather on the demand for it.
It's difficult to separate it. Not to say it's a trap if you try.
The core origin for climate change is our neverending growth for energy, especially electrical.
There is no debate about lowering that.
There are only debates about more growth, the benefits it brings, how to realize the growth, and maybe to base the growth on other technologies. But to downsize -
shrink? Unthinkable!
In the last thirty years:
We got the technology of mobile phones, including the rise for more electric energy needed for it.
We got the technolody of the internet, including the rise for more electric energy needed for it.
We got the technology of big data and cloud services, including the rise for more electric energy needed for it.
We got the technolody of crypto currency, including the rise for more electric energy needed for it.
We are about to get the technology of electric cars, including the rise for more electric energy needed for it.
Now we are getting the technology of AI, including the rise for more electric energy needed for it.
Nobody asks how to satisfy this demand, nor for the source where the energy may come from, especially not if we could afford it. We get technologies first. Questions later. Anybody asks at the beginning if we really need that kind of technology, at least at this scale, is a heretic from the stone ages trying to prevent human progress everybody is encouraged to make jokes on.
More energy has just to be delivered. The question for the source is second at best, and mostly answered where the most money can be made with. That would be nuclear power. Because it needs
large amounts of tax payers subsidies, or it cannot be done even remotely safely. Nuclear power can either be done safely, or economically, but not both. A fact many believers either don't know, or simply ignore. And that's exactly the reason why we need to talk of it over, and over, again, and again: Large amounts of tax money are awaited by the operators. Nobody would use nuclear power if it had to be done responsibly, and being payed completely from the own pocket at the same time. Especially not if the responsibility for accidents had to be taken fully (no company insures that risk; and if, nobody was willing to pay the contributions.)
That was the case in the 1950. That is the case today: It shall be sold to us taxpayers.
This is also proven by the still unsolved question, what to do with the waste (responsibly). Which proves the pro-nuclear power community, which always claims being the only ones arguing with scientificly based facts, are at least as many blind believers as some emotionally enraged opposers. The scientific approach was to first solve that question before continuing. But this question is avoided. "We will find a solution for that." Yeah, we're waiting for that for seventy years. Tell you what: The truth is: There is no solution! But nobody wants to admit that.
At second place were fossil fuels to make most money with. Btw it's nice: Here we are building green clean solar- and wind power plants, but our data centers and workbenches are in China - coal powered. What do we think? Only China will suffer from this, and we will be spared, because we are better?
That's the same joke as electric cars or nuclear power was carbon dioxide neutral: Not drawing the line correctly. Sure, the plant's emission are negligibly small. But the whole process of uranium mining, treatment, transport, and waste disposal is almost completely based on fossil fuels. Fact: nuclear power saves ~60% CO2. Sure, that's not nothing. But it's for sure not neutral, neither. Nor it's enough.
We already are beyond the limits of growth. Our resources are mostly depleted: There is either the kind of almost nothing left, or the kind we cannot afford to dump more of the waste it produces. And there is no space left on this planet to expand to, anymore. And since growth is still the only way most people can think of, we are preparing for world war 3, believing in our arrogance because of our trust into our technical superiority, we will be the winners.
After the climate catastrophy - that's what it really will be; but "change" sounds more nicely than this evil word "catastrophy" - there will be no winners at all, only survivors. This war will be about nothing else but naked surviving only.
While the armament race again causes growth of needs for resources, accelerate the climate change.
Anyway there still are debates about more growth, only. Never the opposite.
The only question discussed are about how it can be done.
At the latest when the point is reached you may think you made your audience grasp this is a dead end, cannot be continued anymore, or apocalypse is unavoidable, some fanciful musers come up with trust into some fantasy BS: "The future will bring solutions. You just need to believe in it." Like getting the CO2 out of the atmosphere to stop climate change. Which again is a new technology that can be sold, produces growth, and again - you guessed right - needs even more energy. How much CO2 you think you need to produce to safely store one ton of CO2? (None, we do it neutral, of course. How? "The future will...")
To all points there always are not only qualitative aspects ("when we remove the CO2 that is too much from the atmosphere this will prevent climate change" which was absolutely right), but also quantitative aspects need to be respected: Any idea how much air you need to filter? In what time? Where to place all that CO2 (safely! This prototype plant in Iceland is for sure not enough)? How much electricity does this need? Where this shall come from? I roughly estimated we would need ten thousand new nuclear power plants for this job alone (at the moment we have app. five hundred in use.) Any idea how many accidents (and waste to dispose) we will get then? (None, of course, as we had in the last seventy years.) Just use a pocket calculator once in a while for such things, before you applaude to such BS!
My favorite is "scientists will find a solution for it." Why not listen to the scientists today? They are not telling you the problems, only, but also provide solutions right and now. What is this? A religion names itself "the nature scientifical enlighted"? Postponing is the reason why we are in this situation. The answer for that shall be postponing
again into some uncertain future? Instead of solving actual, real, and urgent problems
now with actual, real, proven solutions we already have here right and now at our hands. Other BS was expansion into space, ignoring the facts of time-space-reality and physics. And still not solving anything, but postponing again only, even enlarging the problem of infinite growth.
Or since the 1950s the believers of nuclear power bring up one or the other kind of it as it were an actual solution, which it never was, and never will be, e.g. fusion - "In the future there will be..." -
may be! That's also science: As long as something is not proven, as long it's simply not true. At the moment it's still not proven fusion can be used for power plants, because the shit still ain't working yet so far. (fact)
Quantitative aspects again: At the moment we need thirty years and several billions to build a single plant that runs for a few seconds. If we had placed all the money into solar power, we already had a significant larger amount of energy at our hands, as what this physicians toys produced by now: none. "But in the future..." Yeah, yeah!
Other quantitative questions: If tomorrow will be the needed breakthough, and fusion was actually ready to be used for real power plants (not just working, only, but working economically) how long do you think it takes until the first ones can be built? How long it takes they are going into production? How long it will take they provide enough energy? And how much time do you think we have left to solve climate change befor the catastrophy is unavoidable?
You get lost in decoy discussions about how to realize growth, expansion into space, and nuclear power,... completely missing the point to actually solve the problem, which is lowering the need of resources, and energy.
I am tired of that discussion.
It only comes to explaining space-time-reality, the proven facts about the impossibility of nuclear power as an actual solution, which then you need to defend against weisenheimers not read a single book about that technology ignoring the facts,... not get even close to the real core point at all.
...
So the right question to ask was:
Why is the BBC bringing an article about Microsoft is considering to power AI nuclear?
If for anybody who just learned a bit of the facts about this technology it's clear: Nuclear power is neither carbon dioxide neutral, nor economic. Plants cannot built quickly enough to provide the needed power in time. And Microsoft, a pure profit oriented joint-stock business, is for sure not going to chain itself to a financial black hole.
To me the answer is clear:
It's not about AI, nor Microsoft. Those are wind adresses.
We taxpayers shall be talked into give green light for nuclear power again.
It's a PR stunt for nuclear power.
www.bbc.com
