Tech companies are turning to nuclear to fulfill the skyrocketing energy needs of artificial intelligence, with major corporations like Amazon, Google and Microsoft announcing plans to invest in nuclear power. But the speed at which energy needs are growing may not align with the construction or revitalization of nuclear infrastructure, says Alex de Vries, who researches the unintended consequences of AI and cryptocurrencies. There may be a “mismatch between the needs of tech companies today” and the future, while nuclear power continues to carry the same safety risks that led to its phasing out in the first place.
Wouldn’t it be an obvious part of the price they will pay for the electricity? The electricity producer or whatever intermediate in charge of the waste, will bill its work for waste storage, and it will end up on the bill of the energy consumer. What am I missing?
You’re missing that no one ever invested in nuclear if they didn’t expect to socialize storage cost. The premise completely absurd too — you can’t keep anything safe for over 100k years. There’s no way to ensure that people won’t dig up rocks, even on a 500-year horizon.
The entire history of humanity is only 300k years long, and our languages as well as our societal systems of organization are much younger.
Long term storage is not supposed to require maintenance over that time, the worry is rather preventing people to dig them up unknowingly in the future. Actually dangerous wastes have way smaller half lives that that.
And they are surely paying for the thousands of years of waste storage necessary?
When a radioactive rock is stored in a cave somewhere instead of pumping the atmosphere full of CO2: 🤬🤬🤬
When a radioactive roch is stored in a cave somewhere instead of stopping to produce crypto currencies: 🤬🤬🤬
Wouldn’t it be an obvious part of the price they will pay for the electricity? The electricity producer or whatever intermediate in charge of the waste, will bill its work for waste storage, and it will end up on the bill of the energy consumer. What am I missing?
You’re missing that no one ever invested in nuclear if they didn’t expect to socialize storage cost. The premise completely absurd too — you can’t keep anything safe for over 100k years. There’s no way to ensure that people won’t dig up rocks, even on a 500-year horizon.
The entire history of humanity is only 300k years long, and our languages as well as our societal systems of organization are much younger.
Long term storage is not supposed to require maintenance over that time, the worry is rather preventing people to dig them up unknowingly in the future. Actually dangerous wastes have way smaller half lives that that.
over half a century of fear mongering from the nuclear industry itself to upsell safety systems