Google to back three new nuclear projects

Post by throwaway2037 » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:52 PM UTC

croes wrote: post #179

muth02446 wrote: post #65

I view nuclear as a prudent diversification of energy sources: What happens if some supervolcano erupts, and because of the ashes significantly less sunlight reaches the surface of the earth. Presumably, there will also be less wind then.

Are we playing What-if? What if hackers/terrorist attack the power plants? What if the operating companies values profit over security? What if an earthquake or Tsunami hits nuclear power plant?

    > What if hackers/terrorist attack the power plants?

Post by rockemsockem » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:53 PM UTC

agos wrote: post #25

perihelions wrote: post #2

Here's a better article: https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/07/google_signs_another_... > "Elementl didn't respond to questions by press time. Its public materials offer little clarity on its actual operations—aside from broad claims about providing "turn-key project development, financing and ownership solutions customized to meet our customers' needs while mitigating risks and maximizing benefit." > "The nuclear d…

this sounds like one of those Google PR moments where they desperately try to paint themselves as the good guys. Remember when they announced contact lenses to help people with diabetes? Maybe this is related to the talk about splitting Google that's going around these days?

Post by rockemsockem » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:57 PM UTC

delusional wrote: post #109

bpodgursky wrote: post #6

Every compute company knows that power shortage is a looming crisis. They don't have nuclear expertise in-house and are desperately looking for somewhere to put their money that seems to have experience and capability This is a good thing, but will be fruitless unless the US NRC modernizes in parallel with the industry to actually approve a new reactor in less than geologic time.

Ignoring AI (don't @ me) what are we doing with all that compute? Google (the search engine) hasn't meaningfully changed. Shopping is still largely the same as when Amazon first started out. Websites are pretty much the same. I don't understand what we're doing with all those operations. I guess VOD is new, but does that really demand that amount of compute?

Post by 7e » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:57 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #148

dfilppi wrote: post #9

Nuclear (hopefully fusion at some point) is the only plausible way to meet energy needs in the future (that we currently know of). Fear of nuclear waste isn't irrational, but highly overblown because catastrophic events are more emotionally compelling than the slow degradation of either living standards and/or environment caused by competing technology.

> Nuclear (hopefully fusion at some point) is the only plausible way to meet energy needs in the future (that we currently know of). This is simply false. At this point, its falsity has been sufficiently well demonstrated and communicated that you should have known it was false. If you are not deliberately lying, it's only because you steered yourself away from learning the truth.

Post by doublerabbit » Thu, May 08, 2025, 7:01 PM UTC

7e wrote: post #237

pfdietz wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear (hopefully fusion at some point) is the only plausible way to meet energy needs in the future (that we currently know of). This is simply false. At this point, its falsity has been sufficiently well demonstrated and communicated that you should have known it was false. If you are not deliberately lying, it's only because you steered yourself away from learning the truth.

Solar and wind aren’t reliable energy sources. They’re not dispatchable 24x7 and fluctuate along various timescales. Storing renewable energy for 24 hours doubles the cost. Storing it seasonally increases the cost 150x. Show me any place, anywhere, which is using renewable for baseline energy production 24x7. At this point, that’s sufficiently well known that you should have known it. If you’re not deliberately lying…