this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
353 points (98.4% liked)
Fuck AI
5502 readers
757 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
The idiots are restarting Three Mile Island #1. All to power an AI data center.
Absolute insanity.
That's not an issue at all honestly. We need more nuclear power, it is clean power. Restarting existing reactors that weren't decommissioned due to issues, is the fastest way to replace base load generation currently provided by things like coal and gas. Solar, wind, etc. are great but they don't work 24/7/365, so there needs to be a base load to cover that. At the moment, that's handled by coal and gas in most places.
The issue is it being used for AI slop.
Hydroeletric doesn't work 24/7/365?
Hydroelectric is great... Apart from the existing entire ecosystem behind the dam that is destroyed to create the lake used to store the energy it then uses.
And that assumes a large enough body of water to pull energy from without depleting that source, especially with climate change shifting weather patterns. Many existing dams are operating at or near minimum levels because of ongoing drought conditions and similar issues.
If many are operating at minimum capacity, they're still doing a lot. Not all hydroelectic are dammed type, tidal is picking up over time. However, I was merely refuting your not always on claim, not the rest of it. Nuclear is a good option too, when not operated by capitalists.
Everyone always brings up niche options that are highly dependent of the physical region like hydroelectric, tidal, thermal, etc. that massive portions of the country don't have access to, as if they're solutions to the base generation from coal and gas.
Coal usage increased by 1% in 2024, up to a total of 10,700 TWh of power globally.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025/coal
Natural Gas produced 6,529 TWh as of 2022.
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/fossil-fuels/natural-gas#tracking
That's the base generation that nuclear targets. 1,400GW (or 1.4TW) is a large number but with context, it's a drop in the bucket.
Actually, no it doesn't.
To be most effective hydro electric power dams are only opened when they have enough water in them to produce a hood amount of power.
You want as big of a fall height of the water as possible before going into the turbine.
Considering the large local environmental toll hydro electric power has, with disruptions to fish and other animals, it does make sense to keep it as efficient as possible.
Is efficiency really the reason behind dams being somewhat intermittent? Rather than just the fact that we might not need them on all the time (needs vary), or that we just can’t leave them on all the time (not enough water flowing in), and that yes, under these conditions, operators will direct power sources in the most efficient way possible.
What I mean is like, I get that leaving a dam off 50% of the time will have it generate more power once you turn it on. But over the whole period of time, assuming enough water upstream to replenish it in either case, is it actually going to generate more electricity than leaving it on 100% of the time?
I guess what I’m asking is, rather than them being more efficient, isn’t intermittent operation of dams due to the fact that we can’t just leave them on 100% in the first place?
If we left them on 24/7 they would quickly run out of water turn the turbine
different flow rates.
It's better to use it as a backup to solar and wind. And if there's enough excess in energy production, pump the water back to another dam.