Just keep in mind people. The united states government has nuclear reactors that fit on a ship and sub. Clean technology existing versus being available to the public is two different things.
@mariusfacktor3597 exactly.. notice how as AI has gotten smarter these companies have moved away from wanting to run on renewables to now moving towards nuclear? That really puts the whole idea of running a grid off renewables to rest. They can't even reliably run a data center on renewables but people think an entire grid can?
@@pin65371 People already know what renewables are and aren't capable of. For energy production, they need a base supply, an additional supply, and a variable supply. Base is the minimum they need and they keep this constant so they use coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Additional is whatever else they have like solar, wind, hydro. Variable is to rapidly increase production during peak and this is usually natural gas. Nobody thought that solar/wind would replace natural gas or nuclear. They are used to offset natural gas and coal to lessen carbon emissions. But switching the base to nuclear was always something we should have been doing. It makes no sense to burn coal or natural gas when we have a near infinite supply of clean nuclear energy. But some natural gas will still be needed for the variable load.
Nuclear is the way to go. We need more nuclear power in this country anyways, especially if they want electric to go big. Nuclear has zero emissions so win win.
We need more climate friendly technologies which are resource efficient when we are facing a crisis. Thousands of people use AI such as chatGPT which utilizes high amounts of electricity and water consumption. Harnessing resources to the max without exploiting it.
Microsoft signed a deal back in September to reopen the Three Mile Island plant for use of nuclear power for it's growing interest in Ai along with OpenAi
At this point, if this is what it takes to get the country back on board for nuclear energy and new advanced reactors, I guess I'll take it. Not ideal but at least it's something.
Bwa ha ha ha. Kairos power type reactors have never been built. It will take a lot more than six years to do all the work to get a viable product to market. Even using a current technology would struggle to get built in six years.
@@dark12ain Thanks for your interest. For starters, there's an astronomically large *fusion* power source in the sky that provides a cosmically large 173,000-terawatts non-stop to the Earth or about 1000W/m² peak at the ground. It's been doing this for billions of years and at least another billion years more. For reference, that 173,000-terawatts could provide the world's entire annual 620-exajoules of energy in just 1 hour's of time. Or just capture 1/10000th of that spread over 365 days would do it too. Much less than 1% of all the world's land surface in current generation photovoltaics could power all the world's grids. All the combined nuclear and fossil fuels in the world would only amount to a bucket in an ocean in comparison to what we get from our sun. Even that stupendous 173,000-terawatts power Earth gets is just less than 0.000000044% of the sun's total power output. There is no source of power even remotely close to it within over 4-light years from here. The sun occupies nearly all the mass of the solar system. Solar and wind power have dropped to historically low costs per MWh of generation at around $20 to $40 LCOE and continues to get less expensive. While new construction nuclear power is in the $120 to $180 per MWh LCOE and actually going upwards. SMR will be even more expensive as right now we're looking at first-of-a-kind (FOAK) builds. Google will have to shoulder these extra costs. That said, a datacenter has a very large area of rooftop, parking lot and adjacent field areas. That area could probably get at least 50%of their annual watt-hour energy use on just that alone. Surplus solar exported amounts in summertime will actually help the grid. This locally generated power is the most efficient as it does not tax the grid whatsoever. Since every watt generated and used locally is a watt that doesn't stress a distance power plant nor the grid to transmit that watt. That onsite solar could then power 80% to 100% of its energy if Google were to invest in on site energy storage. Moreover, in the next 5 years, non-lithium much cheaper and long-lasting energy storage will become available like liquid-metal flow batteries or even ceramic thermal storage. In addition, Google can enter contracts to buy existing or up-and-coming large-scale solar or wind farm energy. US solar capacity is increasing at very impressive 30% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). US combined solar is presently at ~250TWh annua generation but will over the US entire 4200TWh annual grid generation somewhere in 2036. China builds the equivalent of 5 nuclear power plants in solar a week! Even at a capacity factor of 20%, that solar would still equal 1 nuclear power plant a week. Not even in the most ardent nuclear fan's wet dreams would they imagine that growth.
@@dark12ain Thanks for your interest. For starters, there's an astronomically large *fusion* power source in the sky that provides a cosmically large 173,000-terawatts non-stop to the Earth or about 1000W/m² peak at the ground. It's been doing this for billions of years and at least another billion years more. For reference, that 173,000-terawatts could provide the world's entire annual 620-exajoules of energy in just 1 hour's of time. Or just capture 1/10000th of that spread over 365 days would do it too. Much less than 1-percent of all the world's land surface in current generation photovoltaics could power all the world's grids. All the combined nuclear and fossil fuels in the world would only amount to a bucket in an ocean in comparison to what we get from our sun. Even that stupendous 173,000-terawatts power Earth gets is just less than 0.000000044-percent of the sun's total power output. There is no source of power even remotely close to it within over 4-light years from here. Solar and wind power have dropped to historically low costs per MWh of generation at around $20 to $40 LCOE and continues to get less expensive. While new construction nuclear power is in the $120 to $180 per MWh LCOE and actually going upwards. SMR will be even more expensive as right now we're looking at first-of-a-kind (FOAK) builds. Google will have to shoulder these extra costs. That said, a datacenter has a very large area of rooftop, parking lot and adjacent field areas. That area could probably get at least 50-percent of their annual watt-hour energy use on just that alone. Surplus solar exported amounts in summertime will actually help the grid. This locally generated power is the most efficient as it does not tax the grid whatsoever. Since every watt generated and used locally is a watt that doesn't stress a distance power plant nor the grid to transmit that watt. That onsite solar could then power 80-percent to 100-percent of its energy if Google were to invest in on site energy storage. Moreover, in the next 5 years, non-lithium much cheaper and long-lasting energy storage will become available like liquid-metal flow batteries or even ceramic thermal storage. In addition, Google can enter contracts to buy existing or up-and-coming large-scale solar or wind farm energy. US solar capacity is increasing at very impressive 30-percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR). US combined solar is presently at ~250TWh annua generation but will over the US entire 4200TWh annual grid generation somewhere in 2036. China builds the equivalent of 5 nuclear power plants in solar a week! Even at a capacity factor of 20-percent, that solar would still equal 1 nuclear power plant a week. Not even in the most ardent nuclear fan's wet dreams would they imagine that growth.
@@dark12ain Thanks for your interest. For starters, there's an astronomically large *fusion* power source in the sky that provides a cosmically large 173,000-terawatts non-stop to the Earth or about 1000W/m² peak at the ground. It's been doing this for billions of years and at least another billion years more. For reference, that 173,000-terawatts could provide the world's entire annual 620-exajoules of energy in just 1 hour's of time. Or just capture 1/10000th of that spread over 365 days would do it too. Much less than 1-percent of all the world's land surface in current generation photovoltaics could power all the world's grids. All the combined nuclear and fossil fuels in the world would only amount to a bucket in an ocean in comparison to what we get from our sun. Even that stupendous 173,000-terawatts power Earth gets is just less than 0.000000044-percent of the sun's total power output. There is no source of power even remotely close to it within over 4-light years from here.
its called energy density, a baseload GW power plant based on solar or wind requires at least 1000 times as much land as a reactor power plant, that's just basic physics and those renewables are not base load, they require fossil fuels to provide power when the sun don't shine or wind don't blow.
@@hhn2002the whole nuclear waste issue is a non issue. Really the only reason there is so much waste (which is still barely anything anyways) is because they don't recycle the fuel. Less than 10% of the energy is used. In France they recycle the waste which ends up lowering the half life.
??? Yes you can? Many reactor technologies don't even use light water for coolant. The water is largely just heated by the reactor shell and then they spin a turbine. Its literally just hot rocks making steam.
Just keep in mind people. The united states government has nuclear reactors that fit on a ship and sub. Clean technology existing versus being available to the public is two different things.
Why has the AI not come up with an intelligent solution?
Nuclear energy is an intelligent solution.
@mariusfacktor3597 exactly.. notice how as AI has gotten smarter these companies have moved away from wanting to run on renewables to now moving towards nuclear? That really puts the whole idea of running a grid off renewables to rest. They can't even reliably run a data center on renewables but people think an entire grid can?
@@mariusfacktor3597 is the best idea still to store of spent rods in a mountain? Or is there a better solution?
@@pin65371 People already know what renewables are and aren't capable of. For energy production, they need a base supply, an additional supply, and a variable supply. Base is the minimum they need and they keep this constant so they use coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Additional is whatever else they have like solar, wind, hydro. Variable is to rapidly increase production during peak and this is usually natural gas. Nobody thought that solar/wind would replace natural gas or nuclear. They are used to offset natural gas and coal to lessen carbon emissions. But switching the base to nuclear was always something we should have been doing. It makes no sense to burn coal or natural gas when we have a near infinite supply of clean nuclear energy. But some natural gas will still be needed for the variable load.
Nuclear is the way to go. We need more nuclear power in this country anyways, especially if they want electric to go big. Nuclear has zero emissions so win win.
Fr, we just need to do it correctly
Why is it ok for AI to use nuclear and we have had to use fossil fuel for the past 60 years?
Is not dependent on the government. Pretty sure this is because Google is tired of the massive energy bill its getting.
@@Erc294 it’s 100% because of the government. The government stopped nuclear energy plant development
This is where an Arc Reactor technology would be ideal. Marvel and Tony Stark were onto something.
Reliable, continuous power for many years; a step ahead for Google😊.
So now the real question is, can we make it to 2030 without the entire infrastructure collapsing using all that power?
cheap, reliable, and clean ... the goal should be to increase the diversity of clean energy and not decrease
We need more climate friendly technologies which are resource efficient when we are facing a crisis. Thousands of people use AI such as chatGPT which utilizes high amounts of electricity and water consumption. Harnessing resources to the max without exploiting it.
Microsoft signed a deal back in September to reopen the Three Mile Island plant for use of nuclear power for it's growing interest in Ai along with OpenAi
John is a great host ❤
What protects nuclear power plants from missiles and drones?
At this point, if this is what it takes to get the country back on board for nuclear energy and new advanced reactors, I guess I'll take it. Not ideal but at least it's something.
Good idea I have been waiting for
What could go wrong?
In reality, not much
@@rasputinspickledpeepee1976 complete utter nonsense, when ever nuclear has been shut down it has been replaced by fossil fuel or even coal in Germany
Skynet
Nothing much wrong with nuclear - REALLY?
Not much honestly. And I don't know if you noticed this but they're talking about the new generation of nuclear powered plants.
The power company loves big corporations. How would you like to make $100,000 power bill payment every month?
Get rid of AI. Before it's too late.
Put them in Alaska
So now google building part of skynet's spine 🥴
The world does not need this.
Quantum Nuclear AI 🤔
We all dying
Good, nuclear power is smart.
We just need a sign this country over to google and the other big slum corps already.
SKYNET
Brilliant
So much for being green
What do you mean? Nuclear is clean as it gets😂
Why not build those data centers in locations that is always cold?
传输距离太远
Bwa ha ha ha. Kairos power type reactors have never been built. It will take a lot more than six years to do all the work to get a viable product to market. Even using a current technology would struggle to get built in six years.
Not a smart move Google.
Could you explain why this isn't a smart move? I'm honestly curious......
Is a super smart move. They will svae a lot in their energy bill.
@@dark12ain Thanks for your interest. For starters, there's an astronomically large *fusion* power source in the sky that provides a cosmically large 173,000-terawatts non-stop to the Earth or about 1000W/m² peak at the ground. It's been doing this for billions of years and at least another billion years more.
For reference, that 173,000-terawatts could provide the world's entire annual 620-exajoules of energy in just 1 hour's of time. Or just capture 1/10000th of that spread over 365 days would do it too. Much less than 1% of all the world's land surface in current generation photovoltaics could power all the world's grids.
All the combined nuclear and fossil fuels in the world would only amount to a bucket in an ocean in comparison to what we get from our sun. Even that stupendous 173,000-terawatts power Earth gets is just less than 0.000000044% of the sun's total power output. There is no source of power even remotely close to it within over 4-light years from here. The sun occupies nearly all the mass of the solar system.
Solar and wind power have dropped to historically low costs per MWh of generation at around $20 to $40 LCOE and continues to get less expensive. While new construction nuclear power is in the $120 to $180 per MWh LCOE and actually going upwards. SMR will be even more expensive as right now we're looking at first-of-a-kind (FOAK) builds. Google will have to shoulder these extra costs.
That said, a datacenter has a very large area of rooftop, parking lot and adjacent field areas. That area could probably get at least 50%of their annual watt-hour energy use on just that alone. Surplus solar exported amounts in summertime will actually help the grid. This locally generated power is the most efficient as it does not tax the grid whatsoever. Since every watt generated and used locally is a watt that doesn't stress a distance power plant nor the grid to transmit that watt.
That onsite solar could then power 80% to 100% of its energy if Google were to invest in on site energy storage. Moreover, in the next 5 years, non-lithium much cheaper and long-lasting energy storage will become available like liquid-metal flow batteries or even ceramic thermal storage.
In addition, Google can enter contracts to buy existing or up-and-coming large-scale solar or wind farm energy. US solar capacity is increasing at very impressive 30% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). US combined solar is presently at ~250TWh annua generation but will over the US entire 4200TWh annual grid generation somewhere in 2036. China builds the equivalent of 5 nuclear power plants in solar a week! Even at a capacity factor of 20%, that solar would still equal 1 nuclear power plant a week. Not even in the most ardent nuclear fan's wet dreams would they imagine that growth.
@@dark12ain Thanks for your interest. For starters, there's an astronomically large *fusion* power source in the sky that provides a cosmically large 173,000-terawatts non-stop to the Earth or about 1000W/m² peak at the ground. It's been doing this for billions of years and at least another billion years more.
For reference, that 173,000-terawatts could provide the world's entire annual 620-exajoules of energy in just 1 hour's of time. Or just capture 1/10000th of that spread over 365 days would do it too. Much less than 1-percent of all the world's land surface in current generation photovoltaics could power all the world's grids.
All the combined nuclear and fossil fuels in the world would only amount to a bucket in an ocean in comparison to what we get from our sun. Even that stupendous 173,000-terawatts power Earth gets is just less than 0.000000044-percent of the sun's total power output. There is no source of power even remotely close to it within over 4-light years from here.
Solar and wind power have dropped to historically low costs per MWh of generation at around $20 to $40 LCOE and continues to get less expensive. While new construction nuclear power is in the $120 to $180 per MWh LCOE and actually going upwards. SMR will be even more expensive as right now we're looking at first-of-a-kind (FOAK) builds. Google will have to shoulder these extra costs.
That said, a datacenter has a very large area of rooftop, parking lot and adjacent field areas. That area could probably get at least 50-percent of their annual watt-hour energy use on just that alone. Surplus solar exported amounts in summertime will actually help the grid. This locally generated power is the most efficient as it does not tax the grid whatsoever. Since every watt generated and used locally is a watt that doesn't stress a distance power plant nor the grid to transmit that watt.
That onsite solar could then power 80-percent to 100-percent of its energy if Google were to invest in on site energy storage. Moreover, in the next 5 years, non-lithium much cheaper and long-lasting energy storage will become available like liquid-metal flow batteries or even ceramic thermal storage.
In addition, Google can enter contracts to buy existing or up-and-coming large-scale solar or wind farm energy. US solar capacity is increasing at very impressive 30-percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR). US combined solar is presently at ~250TWh annua generation but will over the US entire 4200TWh annual grid generation somewhere in 2036. China builds the equivalent of 5 nuclear power plants in solar a week! Even at a capacity factor of 20-percent, that solar would still equal 1 nuclear power plant a week. Not even in the most ardent nuclear fan's wet dreams would they imagine that growth.
@@dark12ain Thanks for your interest. For starters, there's an astronomically large *fusion* power source in the sky that provides a cosmically large 173,000-terawatts non-stop to the Earth or about 1000W/m² peak at the ground. It's been doing this for billions of years and at least another billion years more.
For reference, that 173,000-terawatts could provide the world's entire annual 620-exajoules of energy in just 1 hour's of time. Or just capture 1/10000th of that spread over 365 days would do it too. Much less than 1-percent of all the world's land surface in current generation photovoltaics could power all the world's grids.
All the combined nuclear and fossil fuels in the world would only amount to a bucket in an ocean in comparison to what we get from our sun. Even that stupendous 173,000-terawatts power Earth gets is just less than 0.000000044-percent of the sun's total power output. There is no source of power even remotely close to it within over 4-light years from here.
YOLO 🤬 Lead Council for IBM.m
More power for doom scrolling ;)
Terawulf $$
How about to harvest energy from our star 😊
its called energy density, a baseload GW power plant based on solar or wind requires at least 1000 times as much land as a reactor power plant, that's just basic physics and those renewables are not base load, they require fossil fuels to provide power when the sun don't shine or wind don't blow.
Remember: after all of these decades, there’s still no way to safely bury, destroy or neutralize nuclear waste.
False information
we have fully reusable rockets now, and an infinite universe. hint hint easily solvable.
@@hhn2002the whole nuclear waste issue is a non issue. Really the only reason there is so much waste (which is still barely anything anyways) is because they don't recycle the fuel. Less than 10% of the energy is used. In France they recycle the waste which ends up lowering the half life.
better start cloud seeding takes a lot of water for coolant cant have both
??? Yes you can? Many reactor technologies don't even use light water for coolant. The water is largely just heated by the reactor shell and then they spin a turbine. Its literally just hot rocks making steam.
So all that AI, and google still cant figure out what energy is fundamentally and how to convert it
More proof we don’t need AI. Get people back to work and off junk food.
Lol. Fits like a glove, since nuclear industry is as dead as the AI balloon...
Brilliant