camelot-forum.co.uk

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/re ... 2cf3&ei=57

Interesting proposal, not something many countries could consider I presume, also a bit worrying given the pedigree of one of the two sites named as pursuing this strategy.

It will be interesting to see how they address the safety case for structural degradation and containment resilience?

but in terms of burning less FF and re-use rather than recycle you have to give it to them as potentially a correct approach that is arguably particularly applicable to the PWR style of reactor.

I will be interested in others views.

Moxi

The bit about this that is more alarming is the fact that it's only being considered because of the huge increase in energy demands from server farms due to the rapid growth of generative Ai and Large Language Models. This is nothing to do with trying to reduce the overall carbon intensity of the US grid but the likes of Microsoft, Google and others simply needing GW of power to enable people to make stupid pictures.

dan_b wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 10:48 am The bit about this that is more alarming is the fact that it's only being considered because of the huge increase in energy demands from server farms due to the rapid growth of generative Ai and Large Language Models. This is nothing to do with trying to reduce the overall carbon intensity of the US grid but the likes of Microsoft, Google and others simply needing GW of power to enable people to make stupid pictures.

Along those lines there was a recent argument from Ford. They expect to pay ~$4bn in ZEV fines/credits in the next few years. These are penalties for the fleet sales in the US not reaching the CO2 limit, and/or building enough vehicles to earn the necessary zero emission vehicle credits to offset. So a financial penalty for having too high emissions.

But about half of those credits will be bought from Tesla, so around $2bn. But they point out that Elon is spending a fortune on XAI, and Tesla itself is building huge server farms to solve general AI for FSD and the Teslabot. So some Ford emissions monies will be used for other emissions.

It's not a great argument, but it does (I think) have some merit. [Of course, the point would be moot if Ford just built more BEV's and lowered the emissions of its ICE fleet sales. They've had a decade(s) to address this.]

Simple solution, I think, is that companies should have to build RE, or buy in RE leccy, equivalent to such needs, so that we get our extra RE, and the additional server farm demand, also gets extra RE.

Along those lines there was a recent argument from Ford. They expect to pay ~$4bn in ZEV fines/credits in the next few years. These are penalties for the fleet sales in the US not reaching the CO2 limit, and/or building enough vehicles to earn the necessary zero emission vehicle credits to offset. So a financial penalty for having too high emissions.

But about half of those credits will be bought from Tesla, so around $2bn. But they point out that Elon is spending a fortune on XAI, and Tesla itself is building huge server farms to solve general AI for FSD and the Teslabot. So some Ford emissions monies will be used for other emissions.

It's not a great argument, but it does (I think) have some merit. [Of course, the point would be moot if Ford just built more BEV's and lowered the emissions of its ICE fleet sales. They've had a decade(s) to address this.]

Simple solution, I think, is that companies should have to build RE, or buy in RE leccy, equivalent to such needs, so that we get our extra RE, and the additional server farm demand, also gets extra RE.
[/quote]
I'd stop building excess vehicles ........let diesel/petrol prices rise .............. so on a level playing field.
Agree fosil fuels are bad but rare earth mining and extra weight of EV cars .........electric not as green as we are led ..............

Worth noting that the mining/extraction of materials for batteries is barely a rounding error compared to the extraction of FF's. Plus the batteries can be recycled whereas the FF's are consumed. Consider how many decades we've been consuming Cobalt to refine petrol/diesel, and for consumer electronics, but no concerns seemed to rise until BEV's began to displace FF burning cars. Plus of course LFP batts don't need Cobalt.

BEV weight is worth considering, but it's nowhere near the concern that it is sometimes made out to be. Even a large battery pack is going to be around 400-500kg. And when comparisons include the lighter motor(s) v's engine, gearbox, exhaust, fuel load etc, the total difference shrinks somewhat.

A Tesla model 3 is a similar weight to a BMW 3 series, in fact, the long range (big battery) 3 is lighter than a BMW 3 series diesel.

And another plus, is that battery density (both by mass and volume) are still improving. So BEV weights will fall.

Mart,
Spot on.

This continual stream of FUD is soul destroying.

PS MG have just introduced the MG4 ? in Australia for £15,500 ( AS$ 30,000 ) and people are still saying EVs are more expensive. The latest batts will outlast the car and on and on.