“There’s no way to get there without a breakthrough,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, arguing that AI will soon need even more energy.

  • TheFriar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Yeah, nuclear has been available and in use over the period of the sharpest increase in co2 emissions. It’s not responsible for it, but it’s not the answer. The average person can’t harness nuclear energy. But all the renewable energies in the world can fit on a small house: wind, solar, hydro. Why bring radioactive materials into this?

      • TheFriar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        But why continue to rely on a system of profit that is being run like a mob, being split into distinct territories where “free market capitalism” can’t even allow us to not get gouged by profit seekers? Why not generate our own power? Why not 100% renewables? Like I said, why bring radioactive materials into this? For that matter, why bring capitalism into it?

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          My comment was referring to when you mentioned the average person not being able to harvest nuclear energy as an argument against it.

          I’m 100% for broad solar adaptation and even laws forcing new homes to be built with them. The other renewables you mention aren’t harvestable by the average person either sadly.

          I think nuclear is an important tool for running clean societies. Industries need a lot of power and I can also see mini reactors being bought by small towns for their citizens. It has its uses when the renewables aren’t pheasible but the best is always solar or wind farms and hydro for sure.