31–40 of 365 posts
Do the “no nuclear, renewables are the future” people have any comments? We burned a few decades saying solar and wind are the solution. This set us back greatly in the struggle to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Do the “no nuclear, renewables are the future” people have any comments? We burned a few decades saying solar and wind are the solution. This set us back greatly in the struggle to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Never understood the "I'm solar" or "I'm nuclear" crowd. The issue is an engineering problem, not a baseball match. As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths. Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.
Do the “no nuclear, renewables are the future” people have any comments? We burned a few decades saying solar and wind are the solution. This set us back greatly in the struggle to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Never understood the "I'm solar" or "I'm nuclear" crowd. The issue is an engineering problem, not a baseball match. As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths. Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never understood the "I'm solar" or "I'm nuclear" crowd. The issue is an engineering problem, not a baseball match. As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths. Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.
Lets face it deploying nuclear around the world will add other mayor headaches like nuclear profileration.
Personally I’m skeptical of nuclear power given how much easier it is to incrementally add renewable capacity (sure, intermittence is a problem, but I think we can deal with it by being cleverer). But anyway, if anybody (other than the government, which gave up long ago) can pay the upfront costs of nuclear, it is the big tech companies like Google. > […] Google has set 2030 goals to reach net zero emissions across i…
Google can’t have blackouts. So helps to have some nuclear in the energy mix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never understood the "I'm solar" or "I'm nuclear" crowd. The issue is an engineering problem, not a baseball match. As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths. Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.
Lets face it deploying nuclear around the world will add other mayor headaches like nuclear profileration.
Personally I’m skeptical of nuclear power given how much easier it is to incrementally add renewable capacity (sure, intermittence is a problem, but I think we can deal with it by being cleverer). But anyway, if anybody (other than the government, which gave up long ago) can pay the upfront costs of nuclear, it is the big tech companies like Google. > […] Google has set 2030 goals to reach net zero emissions across i…
Google can’t have blackouts. So helps to have some nuclear in the energy mix.
At this point optimising their electricity cost by load balancing their compute to where electricity is cheap, free or negative on a minute by minute basis would be a sizeable cost saving. Savings that would possibly offset the hardware overprovisioning that they would need.
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…
> "meet our customers' needs while mitigating risks and maximizing benefit." Holy corporate jargon batman! I love seeing example of phrases like this out in the wild. Stating this implies that minimizing risks and maximizing benefit is not a need of most customers? IMO, it's better not to say stuff like that at all. It's basically a meaningless phrase, it adds no information to the sentence. In fact, I'd go so far as…
Personally I’m skeptical of nuclear power given how much easier it is to incrementally add renewable capacity (sure, intermittence is a problem, but I think we can deal with it by being cleverer). But anyway, if anybody (other than the government, which gave up long ago) can pay the upfront costs of nuclear, it is the big tech companies like Google. > […] Google has set 2030 goals to reach net zero emissions across i…
If we (the West) had built out nuclear to satisfy our electricity needs, implementing new nuclear power tech as it improved, we could have electricity subscriptions like we have mobile / home internet planes.
You’d just pay for amps, say 50 amp, 150 amp, 300 amp, all you can consume.
But instead we have expensive electricity (at least here in Australia), where your mind is constantly loaded wit being aware of your energy consumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replacement isn't remotely close to good enough. We need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Nuclear is the only viable path for that. We can do more than one thing at a time, we have the resources.
Yes, we need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Solar is the only way we're going to get it. We're adding solar at a 1TW / year rate. We're adding nuclear at a rate of ~30 GW / year.