• ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Not yet we’re not!

        Still plenty of nature to kill before humanity cannot survive in any capacity without corpo supply chains.

        If you’re breathing free air, drinking real water, and actual food can grow out of the ground we’re comparably in cyber paradise given how much worse AI spycraft and corporate ownership will worsen everything exponentially for the non-connected over the next decades

        • sbv@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Still plenty of nature to kill before humanity cannot survive

          I think there may be debate on this point. Climate change may be self perpetuating soon (if it isn’t already) due to thawing meant reserves, etc.

          I’m not sure if anyone in the scientific mainstream thinks that’ll push the climate to a point where we can’t survive, but that probably depends on our behaviour over the next few decades.

        • DeathsEmbrace@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think by the end of this century we might hit a point of no return because the oil and gas have enough money to keep themselves from going under due to climate change.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Elon Musk is working on the cars though. They look like they’ll handle like the 2077 cars as well.

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Could NOT get the nuclear power plant in Georgia off the ground for how long?

        Did it ever get finished?

        But when corporate wants it just fucking happens 🤡

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          Let me preface this that I’m not a huge fan of nuclear, but I do like factual information.

          Could NOT get the nuclear power plant in Georgia off the ground for how long?

          If you’re talking about Vogtle, it took about 13 years and 14 years. (two reactors)

          Did it ever get finished?

          Yes. If you want to be specific the original two reactors were finished in 2008. The new work was for the other two reactors. That’s what took 14 years. Of the two new reactors, one started providing commercial power for the first time in June of 2023. The second new reactor only started providing commercial power in Feb of 2024.

          But when corporate wants it just fucking happens 🤡

          Different type of power plants between what is being discussed for Google and what was put in at Vogtle in Georgia.

          Vogtle was completing construction of an existing older design. Think of this like a bespoke tailored suit. It is crazy expensive, and only fits you.

          What most of these tech companies are going for is called Small Modular Reactors (SMR). Think of this as like buying a ready-to-wear suit off the rack. Its not nearly as fancy or as impressive (usually much smaller power generation), but its not custom made so its much cheaper.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Businesses generating their own power is not anything new. The big auto manufacturers used to do it back in the day, and if you scale down the concept, every windmill (the grain grinding kind) and waterwheel built and operated for profit is the same thing. I’m just happy that Google is seemingly having their own built, instead of getting taxpayers to build it for them.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, if this is what it takes to get new design nuclear facilities in the US, then I’m counting it a win, but I won’t count it either way until the watts come out. Who knows: if they run ok, an actual power company might even try one.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Crazy how quickly we’ve gone from “Nuclear is a dead technology, it can’t work and its simply too expensive to build more of. Y’all have to use fossil fuels instead” to “We’re building nuclear plants as quickly as our contractors can draft them, but only for doing experiments in high end algorithmic brute-forcing”.

    Would be nice if some of that dirt-cheap, low-emission, industrial capacity electricity was available for the rest of us.

    • Zement@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fun Times! Because everyone pays for the waste and when something goes wrong. Privatizing Profits while Socializing Losses. The core motor of capitalism.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The cleanup for fossil fuels is an order of magnitude more expensive, and an order of magnitude more difficult. It also impacts so many things that its true cost is impossible to calculate.

        I’m aware of the issues with nuclear, but for a lot of places it’s the only low/zero emission tech we can do until we have a serious improvement in batteries.

        Very few countries can have a large stable base load of renewable energy. Not every country has the geography for dams (which have their own massive ecological and environmental impacts) or geothermal energy.

        Seriously, we need to cut emissions now. So what’s the option that anti-nuclear people want? Continue to use fossil fuels and hope battery tech gets good enough, then expand renewables? That will take decades. Probably 30+ years at the minimum.

        • Zement@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Nuclear should only be done by the state. Any commercial company doing nuclear HAS TO CARE FOR THE WASTE. It has to be in the calculation, but no on ecan guarantee 10000 years of anything. Same with fossils… execute the fossil fuel industry. They destroyed so much, they don’t deserve to earn a single cent.

          That funky startup is producing waste. Imagine a startup selling Asbestos as the new hot shit in 2024.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          We’re talking 11 years for 7 “small” reactors. The first decade just to establish a business, but no real difference in the overall picture. How many years, decades after that to make a noticeable difference?

          Meanwhile we’re building out more power generation in renewables every year. Renewables are already well developed, can be deployed quickly, and are already scaling up, renewables make a difference NOW.

          • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            You are totally ignoring their arguments. Not every place can do wind or solar or hydro. Like it’s simply not an option.