71–80 of 237 posts
Project Kilby is probably the most intelligent approach to this problem so far. https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/2026/q2/chevron-signs-20-ye... The idea is to bring the data centers, power generators and energy supply together in the ~same physical space so the only thing you have to transmit is data. Moving energy is way more expensive than moving information.
The ocean tidal power data center idea was a neat one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar doesn’t produce that much waste either and that was the point. Just because you don’t see the nuclear waste doesn’t mean it isn’t sitting there somewhere. The person was acting as if clean energy is dirty via its waste. For the record I’m all for nuclear - it’s insane we’ve regressed so much and not invested into more. But it’s also insane we’re not taking more advantage of green energy where we can.
Most of the solar panels are pretty non-dangerous waste (cadmium telluride (CdTe) solar panels are dangerous waste, but are currently only small part of installed solar panels). Silicon tetrachloride used for silicon production is toxic and has to handled carefully. The main point is that, if Europe wants to invest more in solar power, it should also do the manufacturing in Europe and waste disposal in Europe.
For example, nuclear power is often sold as a plant that just sits there churning out zero-emissions power for 50 years from a few tons of super energy dense fuel (such as from the above commenter). Without acknowledging that fuel needs to be enriched from intensive and environmentally destructive mining of raw uranium ore. Which comes with risks to workers and possible contamination of groundwater to nearby communities, etc. Or the carbon impacts of the massive amounts of concrete/steel/etc that are required to build the plant, or the opportunity costs of spending tens of billions on a plant that will require continuing to burn natural gas and coal for another 10-20+ years until it comes online as a replacement, etc.
Otherwise it's just special pleading to apply a different standard that exaggerates the negative externalities of solar + batteries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the Innovation Adoption Curve, we are absolutely beyond the Early Adopters phase and possibly the Early Majority. The growth rates necessarily have to start trending down because there’s no one left to sell to.
I'm not sure if the classic adoption curve applies. Has there ever been a product that vendors were shoving down customer's throats as relentlessly as AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar and wind take up a bunch of space and generate a bunch of waste after the panels are decommissioned, plus the wind generators are ruining every single landscape we have. With 5 nuclear stations per country you could cleanup so much of Europe.
The environmental damage caused by "clean" power sources is done mostly in countries which are far from Europe, so it's not much discussed in Europe. Like: Copper. "As the world shifts to wind energy and electric cars, demand for the conductive metal has increased. But mining copper brings its own environmental hazards" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-minin... Impacts of lithium mining on water…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its only expensive because its been regulated to death. In terms of potential energy output in a given area its tops.
It's been regulated "to death" because it's responsible for some of the worst man-made catastrophes of all time and has made large swaths of land uninhabitable for ~forever. Move fast and break things this is not.
Even in terms of radiation accidents, nuclear power generation pales in comparison to orphan sources from medical equipment. Yet you don't see people clamoring on about fewer x-ray or radiological machines.
> made large swaths of land uninhabitable for ~forever.
Are you talking about places besides the Chernobyl exclusion zone?
And why compare the small amount of area made dangerous by nuclear accidents to the entire planet being destroyed by fossil fuels?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He hates wind turbines because he simply doesn't like how they look, and couldn't stop them next to one of his golf courses. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15l3knp4xyo
And he hates solar because??? If you look at the overall picture, it's clear that he opposes anything not carbon based. And cost isn't a rational reason for it. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/20/trump-says-us-will-not-appro...
Remember when we didn't have enough electricity for electric cars?
That's with only about 5% of cars being electric.
We've consumed nearly all of the slack in transmission capacity.
I'm expecting transmission costs to balloon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
have you never heard of tamper-proof containers? mess with it, it’s useless and you go to jail for a long time? Plus, they’re ubiquitous, you don’t know who has one, max damage is minimal even worst case — go fish!
We have microwave ovens. They’re pretty safe. Imagine something as safe as that. We can do it. But I can’t disagree that it’s more exciting to imagine terror dreams.
A big potential concern with small reactors are highly toxic radionuclides; those can be much more dangerous (with LD50 far under 1mg/kg) than "ordinary toxins" like bleach or even nasty stuff like methyl isocyanate. That means expensive disposal and protection measures.
All of this is a non-concern though because there is no realistic path for nuclear reactors to compete with PV+batteries, ever. With cells already never be able to build, maintain and dispose of nuclear based reactors tech at a competitive price point, especially not with the insane current battery demand (automotive) driving technical optimisation and price competition.
Project Kilby is probably the most intelligent approach to this problem so far. https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/2026/q2/chevron-signs-20-ye... The idea is to bring the data centers, power generators and energy supply together in the ~same physical space so the only thing you have to transmit is data. Moving energy is way more expensive than moving information.
> Moving energy is way more expensive than moving information But this project is still moving energy- it's just moving natural gas instead of electricity!