Google signs deal for nuclear energy to power AI datacenters.

Google, like Microsoft then begs for taxpayer money to run this operation and the government, being in bed with all companies agrees to sell its citizens out...yet again.

Inb4 Microsoft and google electricity services for residents.

50

If it results in the nuclear plants remaining online and providing energy after the AI bubble pops, that doesn't seem so bad.

Fission is one of the cleanest energy sources we have today.

24
- The AI bubble isn't going to pop, it's just going to transition to a rebranded cloud computing business.
  
  6
- A nuclear fission power plant generates about as much CO2 as wind turbines if you have a look at it's whole lifecycle. That's because just operation doesn't generate CO2. But nonetheless that power plant is made from materials like lots of concrete. It needs to be built, decommissioned, etc. You need to mine the uranium ore, ... All of that generates quite some CO2. So it's far off from being carbon neutral. And we already have alternatives that are in the same ballpark as a nuclear power plant with that. Just that the fission also generates this additional nuclear waste that is a nightmare to deal with. And SMRs are less efficient than big nuclear power plants. So they'll be considerably less "clean" than for example regenerative energy. I'd say they're definitely not amongst the cleanest energy sources we have today. That'd be something like a hydroelectric power. However, it's way better than oil or natural gas or coal. At least if comparing CO2 emissions.
  
  4
- Until you get the bill, again.
  
  2
- There’s nothing clean about fission. It produces expensive poisonous waste that has to be stored for 1000 years. And in the US, no one wants it in their state, driving the price up further. And when you’re unlucky, you end up with superfund sites like Fukushima and Chernobyl.
  
  -11
I don't see where this is being paid for with tax dollars. It looks like it's all privately funded to me.

1
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/03/nuclear-microsoft-ai-constellation/
  
  Here's the one for Microsoft. Google will follow suit sooner or later. These companies don't get this loaded by spending their money on big projects like this
  
  1
- Actually, it's billions of public dollars. And if we don't find a proper permanent solution, it's going to become more: https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us
  
  0

yes, let's use nuclear energy to generate half assed AI assistants, images and videos instead of making clean energy cheaper

19

Nuclear energy is clean, but I agree this energy should be used for a useful purpose, which would bring down costs.

5
- that is the point? when big tech monopolizes sources of clean energy, it becomes more expensive (or can not become cheaper at best) because there is less availability
  
  4
Every Google search should include an AI answer! Who cares about energy usage, we'll just buy a nuclear power plant!

0

break up big tech. regulate monopolies before we get the second great depression.

19

What is the motive behind this push to ram AI down out throats?

They already have all my emails, photographs. location and browsing data.

What do they gain from providing unreliable information at many times the power use? Or having me ask "write a sincere-sounding thank-you email".

I feel like I'm missing some big revelation that will make it make sense.

11

I say this as someone that works in AI.

It's all a smoke-screen. It shows that Google (and every other big tech company) is producing super secret, super high tech stuff that should make their shareholders super happy. The reality is that Google and co haven't produced shit for years, have laid off hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, and don't have long term plans to improve outside of enshittifcation.

8
- 100%
  
  14 years of gaping monetary policy conditioned Corps to making profits from nearly free debt.
  
  Now they have to actually USE their businesses' capabilities and it turns out they suck at being businesses. MIT calls it a "capability trap."
  
  They're just con men still hoping people will dance to their tune after the music has stopped.
  
  4
Money.

AI will improve and this will be a multi trillion dollar market. Big tech is in a race to be the biggest.

We don't need it and should be focussing on important things but yay capitalism right?

5
- Yeah but big tech is also the customer. So it doesnt make sense. How will they make money if the only way to do so is to trick other giant tech companies into buying and using your product?
  
  2

better than using coal but it would be even better without those expensive datacenter running the bullshit machines

4

"clean energy"

Don't nuclear power plants produce waste which is highly problematic because it's hazardous and radioactive? I wouldn't call that clean. And SMRs generate even more waste than big nuclear plants.

3

Burying the small amount of waste in a stable non-actively forming mountain for a few thousand years is 1000x better than burning things and putting them into the air.

24
- I'm not so sure about that. We already had to pay a lot of taxpayers' money to fix bad issues with those storage facilities. And it's just been a few decades with at least tens of thousands of years to go. That could become very, very expensive. And nasty to deal with for future generations.
  
  I'd say just burying your waste where no one can see it isn't a good solution. Neither is just dumping it into the ocean. And knowing a worse alternative doesn't make it right.
  
  You're correct, burning yet more oil and coal and putting that CO2 into the atmosphere isn't a viable option either. That'd ruin the climate and be unhealthy for us.
  
  -6
highly problematic because it's hazardous and radioactive?

Thing is, there's very little of that waste, with much less impact than say, burning coal.

Also, it's highly radioactive only when taken fresh out of reactor - this waste is stored in pools, until it decays. What you're left is weakly radioactive, long term waste that needs to be buried for a long time.

14
- much less impact than say, burning coal.
  
  Why compare to coal, not wind & solar + batteries.
  
  2
- Adding to this. The waste has been used to fuel subsequent reactions and could be used to produce more power
  
  2

It's not enough to pollute the Internet, it's time to pollute the world with radioactive waste.

That's brilliant!

-1

technology companies are going to kill us all

nuclear power should be illegal everywhere

-6