Big party for Altman et al these days, who have been advocating (lobbying) a lot for this.
The US, and the world at large needs more electricity, and nuclear probably does have it's place in the mix. Just hope we do not spend all the new capacity on "AI". And most importantly, that nuclear safety continues to be highly prioritized every step of the way.
kemotep · 7h ago
We could probably double our solar and battery capacity in the same time as it takes to build a Nuclear Power plant even with removing all the barriers.
I was excited for using mini-reactors in coal plants but then when I realized that former coal plants are too radioactive to safely operate a nuclear plant without extensive cleanup was when I realized nuclear was a dead end.
Nuclear container ships though.
PeterHolzwarth · 13h ago
An unexpected way for pro-nuclear-power fans to get the ball rolling on accelerated approvals for new reactors, but I'm sure they will gladly accept it.
loudmax · 8h ago
As a pro-nuclear-power fan, this does sound like it could be good news. I do have a few concerns.
First, the power source is orthogonal to AI. Datacenters will run just as well on nuclear, or coal, or wind and solar. And the electricity generated from nuclear could be used to run datacenters, or power electric cars, or replace decommissioned coal plants. In this context, the AI stuff is just confusing matters.
Second, this administration is about the last people I'd want involved in assessing or enforcing precautions around nuclear safety.
soramimo · 7h ago
We could free up a lot of capacity by somehow taxing/regulating the externalities of bitcoin to get people to use etherium (if they must use cryto).
nsonha · 13h ago
Hard to believe that AI or any kind of acceleration towards digital economy (cloud etc) is responsible for the world's energy crisis. Could it be the over-consumption and production in the physical economy that's the culprit maybe?
If data centers generate that much heat, which is the only reason it consumes significant energy, then should the focus be capturing that and turn it into another energy source?
chneu · 11h ago
You're right on target with the over consumption line.
AI is a drop in the bucket compared to the insanely unnecessary nonsense that people buy because they just want more crap.
Anyone who is talking about how much energy AI uses should be looking at themselves and their communities as well. Change begins with small decisions/actions and americans have been convinced that small decisions/actions don't make a difference because it's an easy excuse to do nothing.
There are a handful of very simple things people can do that would make a huge difference, such as reducing food waste/red meat consumption, less air travel, using less energy to power their homes, buying less stuff, using less plastic(buy glass/metal stuff) and driving less. All those things can reduce an individual's consumption by over 50%(red meat can make up nearly 30% of that reduction). But nobody wants to do these things because we're told it's the corporations/rich people's fault. Americans are BY FAR the heaviest consumers in the world and we have all the excuses in the world for why we think it's okay.
soramimo · 7h ago
FWIW, the energy use per capita in the USA (and other western countries) is lower than in the 1970's and has been steady/declining [1].
Granted, some of the energy intensive manufacturing was outsourced to China and other places, but then again there's also an increase in efficiency standards (e.g. vehicles, heating etc).
CO2 emissions per capita in Western countries (including the US) have peaked in the 1970s and are now roughly on pre-WW2 levels [2].
(note that I'm onboard with reducing waste etc, but the claim that consumption drives energy use is somewhat misleading)
I was excited for using mini-reactors in coal plants but then when I realized that former coal plants are too radioactive to safely operate a nuclear plant without extensive cleanup was when I realized nuclear was a dead end.
Nuclear container ships though.
First, the power source is orthogonal to AI. Datacenters will run just as well on nuclear, or coal, or wind and solar. And the electricity generated from nuclear could be used to run datacenters, or power electric cars, or replace decommissioned coal plants. In this context, the AI stuff is just confusing matters.
Second, this administration is about the last people I'd want involved in assessing or enforcing precautions around nuclear safety.
If data centers generate that much heat, which is the only reason it consumes significant energy, then should the focus be capturing that and turn it into another energy source?
AI is a drop in the bucket compared to the insanely unnecessary nonsense that people buy because they just want more crap.
Anyone who is talking about how much energy AI uses should be looking at themselves and their communities as well. Change begins with small decisions/actions and americans have been convinced that small decisions/actions don't make a difference because it's an easy excuse to do nothing.
There are a handful of very simple things people can do that would make a huge difference, such as reducing food waste/red meat consumption, less air travel, using less energy to power their homes, buying less stuff, using less plastic(buy glass/metal stuff) and driving less. All those things can reduce an individual's consumption by over 50%(red meat can make up nearly 30% of that reduction). But nobody wants to do these things because we're told it's the corporations/rich people's fault. Americans are BY FAR the heaviest consumers in the world and we have all the excuses in the world for why we think it's okay.
Granted, some of the energy intensive manufacturing was outsourced to China and other places, but then again there's also an increase in efficiency standards (e.g. vehicles, heating etc).
CO2 emissions per capita in Western countries (including the US) have peaked in the 1970s and are now roughly on pre-WW2 levels [2].
(note that I'm onboard with reducing waste etc, but the claim that consumption drives energy use is somewhat misleading)
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab...
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita