241
this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
241 points (98.8% liked)
Fuck AI
6981 readers
1227 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nuclear plant has closed water system and usually dumps heat to nearby lake or sea. It ofc has environmental impact but less on freahwater usage compared to AI data centers that cool machines using freah water and in a way hard to recover water.
Tho when it comes to nuclear plant the elephant in the room is the hazardous waste it produces that takes next 100,000 years to settle. We're doing "let's fuck around bcs we won't find out in our lifetime" again.
Wind (and tidal) are affected by climate, may become unsustainable and imo the true free energy is solar.
Nuclear waste is solvable, just not with existing market mechanisms. There were plans to reprocess nuclear waste before tge fall of the USSR lowered the price of Uranium ore.
Climate change is solvable, just not with existing market mechanisms.
Not a great comparison given that climate change does continuous, irreparable damage, whereas nuclear waste from power plants just sits there. Nuclear waste from nuclear weapon production is its own issue tho.
If it doesn't do anything and 'just sits there' why do we have to be so careful where we put it? I don't normally bury all my harmless materials at the bottom of a mine
So that it does continue to just sit there. If you dissolve it in ground water or concentrate so much of it it vaporizes or break it up and disperse it, it is no longer just sitting there.
Also lots of materials are harmless when treated correctly, and dangerous if dispersed.
Why would a data center not be able to employ the same mechanism of having a closed water system and dumping heat?
Waste management is an issue for sure when it comes to nuclear, but the economics of nuclear is arguably the bigger problem - not to mention their uninsurability.
Closed watet system is expensive and less scalable construction wise.
Nuclear plant employs it because the water has direct contact to the nuclear fuel, containing radioactive minerals. It cannot be released outside without treatment. It is necessity than choice. Companies would've chosen open water system if regulation allowed to so that they don't have to pay the cleanup fee.
My understanding is that all nuclear power plants have a primary closed loop system (for the direct contact part), but the secondary cooling system, by heat exchange with the closed system, can either be evaporative or by heat exchange with an available body of water.
Nuclear plant has been historically built nearby water body without water loss (evaporating). Shift to open system happened mostly in US. Majority of plants are still located in coast side (UK, Korea, Japan, Finland etc) using sea water, inland one still utilize river water (France).
For new US reactors likely employ open system so your water concern stands, though its open evaporation system is optimized better than unoptimized data center ones.
because a closed system is more expensive than an open one. We live in capitalism where maximizing profits is the name of the game.
Alright, so we mandate it, and then nuclear power plants are on the same level of consuming water as data centers - which is still not good, that was my point, mind you
good luck mandating it when town halls full of locals screaming at their local level officials not to build a data center doesnt even work.