Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Generative AI Race Has a Dirty Secret

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: The Generative AI Race Has a Dirty Secret

#51

Post by graeme »

kragen wrote: post #50
graeme wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

World growth is the only metric that matters. USA offshored many industries which use CO2. World carbon growth has not peaked as you can see here: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions CO2 is also most analogous to an overflowing bathtub. Lowering the rate would be great if we can get there, but what we really need is to get to zero new CO2 emissions. We are a long way off from that so every new energy use worsens…

if your bathtub is overflowing you should unplug the drain; atmospheric carbon capture is not cheap, but not infeasibly expensive either, and will surely be necessary

I agree, but you can only stretch an analogy so far. Unplugging a bathtub is free, whereas capturing carbon currently is more costly than the energy used to capture it.

Re: The Generative AI Race Has a Dirty Secret

#52

Post by kragen »

graeme wrote: post #51
kragen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if your bathtub is overflowing you should unplug the drain; atmospheric carbon capture is not cheap, but not infeasibly expensive either, and will surely be necessary

I agree, but you can only stretch an analogy so far. Unplugging a bathtub is free, whereas capturing carbon currently is more costly than the energy used to capture it.

taken literally you seem to be saying that there are costs other than energy involved in atmospheric carbon capture, which is too obvious to be worth saying; your capex and non-energy opex costs can be low but they obviously can't be zero or negative

do you mean more costly than the energy obtained by burning it, because that's a small edit that converts your statement into an assertion that's at least coherent

if so, no, the cost is about an order of magnitude smaller; though coherent, your assertion is still wrong

Re: The Generative AI Race Has a Dirty Secret

#53

Post by palata »

kragen wrote: post #49
palata wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no, it mostly depends on energy Sure, and where does most of that energy come from today , and how do you propose we replace it? Because that's the whole point, isn't it? > can use any convenient energy source Sure. Right now it's mostly fossil though, and it's not like photovoltaic is even close to changing that. Of course if you assume a theoretical clean energy to build your photovoltaic, then that's clean (in t…

most of this energy today comes from fossil fuels. i propose we replace it primarily with photovoltaic energy. i am not sure how this could have been unclear from my comments above. this transition is already happening and will be essentially complete within a decade (supplemented where possible with wind, which is cheaper where it's abundant) but it's irrelevant where the energy comes from today when we're talking a…

> i am not sure how this could have been unclear from my comments above.

It was clear. I am just saying that photovoltaic is very far from replacing fossil fuels.

> this transition is already happening and will be essentially complete within a decade

I guess let's see that. Also photovoltaic energy depends on the weather, it's not exactly something we can control (unlike fossil fuels or nuclear energy).

> that has never been a problem so far in human history

Well I think we can say that energy consumption in human history is largely correlated with fossil fuels, can't we? But I did not say that there is no market. I said that it's not clear whether we can make it work _at all_ without fossil fuels and without reducing our consumption.

> the issue is that it would be bad to turn the planet into venus.

Yep, but the biodiversity problem is not even related to climate change: we are destroying life on Earth just because we have the energy to do it. The fact that, on top of that, this energy is creating big problems that still have to happen (climate change) is just adding to the problem.

We should just drastically reduce our consumption, both because cheap energy is not a given for the future, and because we should care about not turning the planet into Venus, or Mars.

Re: The Generative AI Race Has a Dirty Secret

#54

Post by retostamm »

kragen wrote: post #52
graeme wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but you can only stretch an analogy so far. Unplugging a bathtub is free, whereas capturing carbon currently is more costly than the energy used to capture it.

taken literally you seem to be saying that there are costs other than energy involved in atmospheric carbon capture, which is too obvious to be worth saying; your capex and non-energy opex costs can be low but they obviously can't be zero or negative do you mean more costly than the energy obtained by burning it, because that's a small edit that converts your statement into an assertion that's at least coherent if so…

[dead]

Re: The Generative AI Race Has a Dirty Secret

#55

Post by palata »

kragen wrote: post #45
andromeduck wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That convenient energy source needs to be stable, which most renewables are far from.

there are some advantages to it being stable, but even today, pv plus batteries is still cheaper than coal in much of the world

If you ignore the fact that your pv panels plus batteries relied on fossil fuel for extraction/manufacturing/transport, right?

Now try to do all that without fossil fuels. Is that still cheaper, today? Pretty sure it's not (pretty sure it's not possible to do that with only pv energy right now, the infrastructure is just not there).

Re: The Generative AI Race Has a Dirty Secret

#56

Post by kragen »

palata wrote: post #55
kragen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are some advantages to it being stable, but even today, pv plus batteries is still cheaper than coal in much of the world

If you ignore the fact that your pv panels plus batteries relied on fossil fuel for extraction/manufacturing/transport, right? Now try to do all that without fossil fuels. Is that still cheaper, today? Pretty sure it's not (pretty sure it's not possible to do that with only pv energy right now, the infrastructure is just not there).

no, they don't; you are harping on irrelevancies

Re: The Generative AI Race Has a Dirty Secret

#57

Post by kragen »

palata wrote: post #53
kragen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most of this energy today comes from fossil fuels. i propose we replace it primarily with photovoltaic energy. i am not sure how this could have been unclear from my comments above. this transition is already happening and will be essentially complete within a decade (supplemented where possible with wind, which is cheaper where it's abundant) but it's irrelevant where the energy comes from today when we're talking a…

> i am not sure how this could have been unclear from my comments above. It was clear. I am just saying that photovoltaic is very far from replacing fossil fuels. > this transition is already happening and will be essentially complete within a decade I guess let's see that. Also photovoltaic energy depends on the weather, it's not exactly something we can control (unlike fossil fuels or nuclear energy). > that has ne…

if it was clear then why did you ask

are you just trolling

Post reply on HN