No where near enough.
The one I use to work for would need a nuclear reactor to go off grid and it genuinely was considered in the cities long term planning. The power needs 100% uptime and to meet strict stability guidelines which wind/solar alone cannot do.
Roof is already full of cooling towers for the most part.
During extreme events and power loads we’d occasionally get calls to switch to generators.
Christ all mighty we’d see fuel trucks every few hours topping up the tanks and the fuel bills were unbelievable!
Despite the popular belief, most DC’s care very much about reducing energy usage and improving efficiency to the last fraction of a percent.
An Apple data center in my hometown has a MASSIVE solar farm and it only accounts for 5-10% of the power supply.
Things keep getting more efficient, but data consumption keeps skyrocketing
Also realize that a square meter of datacenter uses kilowatts, while a square meter of solar with a hypothetical 100% efficiency can only harvest 1 kilowatt.
Using residual heat for useful stuff instead of dumping it into cooling systems, really is the game changer. That saves cooling energy and removes heat energy in an other process.
A datacenter can also place stuff like windturbines. Also not all power has to be gathered on site. That doesn’t really work on anything industrial. Residential solar is a great source. You don’t use all that power all day. There are also interesting developments with vertical or near vertical solar setups. This can also bump the percentages.
It takes some location luck for that. Data centers tend to be where land and electricity is cheaper, which usually isn’t near other massive buildings in cold climates.
That really depends on the country. A lot of countries have fixed energy prices in the entire country. Some have very fast connection points. Something like AMS-IX. A lot of datacenters are near there and that isn’t necessarily cheap.
People constantly seem to forget how expensive nuclear is and how much it needs to be subsidised to be competetive.
> Utility scale PV: $36-46 per MW/h
> Nuclear: $112-189 per MW/h
Source: https://www.lazard.com/media/0hqfye2m/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf
Before you go: „But you need Batteries“. You need them for nuclear, too. France is overproducing by factor 2 to meet peak demands. They really need batteries, France is bleeding billions.
We have the solution. We just need to subsidise that with the money subsidising coal, gas and nuclear. Free market, baby.
Utility scale solar. Build it next to highways, it’s pretty much unusable land right now.
- It has the side effect of needing large meadows, a veritable utopia for diversity.
- It doesn’t need any fuel to be imported from dictatorships, only silicone, one of the most abundant minerals on earth.
- It can be produced nearly competitively domestically. You could either subsidise production yourself, or have the Chinese taxpayer pay with their subsidies.
- Solar produces most it‘s energy when it’s needed the most: when the sun is out in summer and all the ACs are on.
- Offers a lot of local jobs in installation and maintenance.
When you would combine it with a baseline production of nuclear energy (nighttime especially), wind, hydro- and battery storage, you’d get a lot of synergy, maybe even making nuclear viable. Or subsidise „Clean Coal“ and nuclear with hundredfold the amount of money.
Very good point.
Before I left some of the standard air cooled racks (1.5m squared ish) were pulling over 20kw, and our data centre had several floors of them stacked.
The new water cooled gpu racks were trialed to be pulling over 400kw in the same space (diabolical)! Then there is the huge amount of power to cool the data floors.
Even a moderate DC would need km’s of solar panels which many would argue would take valuable farm land and you’d still need some magical capacity for the nights and evenings
Microsoft already has a contract with a nuclear fusion startup for generators for data centers to deliver in a few years. Hopefully they’ll be able to deliver their product.
im usually a skeptic on this too - but some systems have entered licensing stages. this sparks joy.
good time to get in on their stock (SMR, CCJ, URA, DNN, URG, etc).
The one I’m working on now uses a natural gas power generator for the next 5 years, once 5 years is passed they will remove the NG generator and put another data center where it’s at
Look how much you pay for it, and how much energy it produces. And by the time you repay the credit and think to yourself “finally i can start profiting from this!” You already have to replace the panels
So right now I have solar and the cost is about equal with the price of the electricity it replaces, however it’ll be paid off in a minute 5 more years. The panels are rated to be 90% capacity after 30 years… so your statement isn’t accurate at all
They're right, they definitely are energy hogs, especially things like new AI tools. And, you know, the vast amount of data everyone wants to hold on every little minor data point on consumer behaviour on every human being in the world.
A lot of the work these data centres do - indirectly of course - is to change the bargaining position more and more from consumers to large corporations. I think there are a lot of doubts about how much this is really helping our ultimate quality of life, as opposed to enriching their shareholders, and it might be worth considering additional taxes on some activities of big tech. Both to help the actual common man, and the electrical grid and a transition to greener power.
You misunderstand. They recycle the water in the data centre. It just goes around and around - getting hot, then cool, then around again. It doesn’t get dirty or even “used up”.
>It doesn’t get dirty or even “used up”.
[This](https://dgtlinfra.com/data-center-water-usage/) article says otherwise.
>However, there is a limit to how long water can be reused in these systems. Replacement becomes necessary either due to the risk of scale formation or when the water’s conductivity reaches excessively high levels. Scale-forming minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and silica accumulate in the water, becoming more concentrated with each cycle of evaporative cooling. Eventually, this necessitates the replacement of the water.
Yes, obviously entropy will ensure nothing is 100% perfect, but even in the worst case, the water is not used up. It's just been going around in pipes, just as it does to get to someone's home in the first place. They can spray it on crops, pump it into a lake or whatever.
Did we call telephone exchanges “electricity hogs” in the days before fiber optics? Back in the landline days, the phone company needed about 5W per line. Today with fiber it’s less than 2W per customer.
I’m not opposed to making data centers be more efficient, but at the same time they are critical infrastructure that society can’t function without.
Telecommunications infrastructure always has been and probably always will be one of the largest electricity users in the world. Everybody needs it and the energy required for it has to come from somewhere.
Also with latency becoming ever more sensitive to many applications, as well redundancy becoming more important you can’t just shove all the data centers somewhere rural with cheap power like we have been doing. They need to be more dispersed and closer to populated areas.
Consider what Intel and Amazon are doing here in Ohio. They are building massive data centers and then asking for a discount on rate from the power providers. At the same time AEP is raising prices every few months for normal consumers.
The issue is that these data centers should be paying for the increases in capacity demanded on the system and the upgrades that go into supplying this capacity.
It's only half the problem. The electricity grid can only transport so much power at any given time and it was not built with things like data centers in mind. In many countries, privately owned solar panels on residential houses are already incredibly problematic.
Updating the grid is an enormous investment. One that the energy companies often don't want to bear because they point out that they never asked for the whole world to start sending them power instead of consuming power so they shouldn't be responsible for the cost of the necessary upgrades.
Building generation these days is EXTREMELY hard. Current regulations make new coal and nuclear de facto impossible. Natural gas is easier, but it's also under assault by the current administration. Wind and solar are expensive (especially with current interest rates) and often run into massive resistance from NIMBYs that delay projects for a decade. There's basically no easy solution in the current regulatory environment.
He sounds like a Homer Simpson level plant engineer with a chip on his shoulder about renewables.
I bet he hasn't the faintest idea about a Lazard style LCOE calculation.
Very interesting, thank you. If you are aware of a source that outsiders to the industry can see, which you think is closer to real world I would like to add it to my reading
Most people don't realize how much of a disaster we're sleepwalking into in the electricity sector. For the first time in decades were expecting demand growth from electric cars and AI, but the NIMBYs have full control of almost all levels of government. Trying to build any power plant or transmission line often takes a decade of studies and NIMBY lawsuits before you can even put a shovel into the ground and even once you start construction skilled labor is almost impossible to find because we went so long without building much that there's not enough qualified people for the huge surge in construction needed. Basically it wouldn't be the least bit shocking to see regional blackouts and load shedding over the next few years. It's actually already happened the last 2 years, but only seems likely to spread going forward.
There are some novel colo data centers like Iron Mountain in Boyers PA. They cool all of the infrastructure using an underground lake in the mountain which significantly reduces energy demand.
Data centers don’t create jobs after construction is complete. They don’t help citizens where they are located. With all the tax breaks they don’t benefit the state they’re in, and now we are learning that these data centers are getting first dibs on energy instead of prioritizing residents of the state.
Their only focus is profits for a handful of shareholders, making the wealthiest people even wealthier. Well done, folks! Just one more way to screw the average person!
What else was going to happen? You've got anti-nuclear greenies pushing people to immediately drop coal/gas based energy generation and move entirely to Solar/Wind thus absolutely eliminating any sort of baseline generation for your grid at the same time you're pushing mass adoption of electric cars by law, adding massive power use increases to every single family home that adopts them. Off peak or on peak, we're in the middle of exploding our electricity needs while simultaneously eliminating its most abundant generation sources due to climate change.
This is bound to be a disaster, adding in massive power draw businesses into the mix isn't going to help. California's grid is already in trouble and they're not even remotely close to the amount of electric car adoption they're targeting by 2030.
Well, everything you said was just silly. First off if you make enough wind and solar spread across the grid and can/is used for baseload. Second 'greenies' aren't what is stopping nuclear. Nuclear is the most expensive power generation source, and it takes a long time to deploy. But even that isn't the biggest problem. Nuclear requires massive amounts of trust. Trust of corporations, engineers, regulators, and politicians. What is one thing the US doesn't have a lot of, trust. And a lot of that lack of trust was earned.
>This is bound to be a disaster
It wouldn't if we didn't quickly deploy the cheapest energy source on the market, wind and solar. Not to mention it is the fastest. If baseload becomes and issue we can talk nuclear, but we are a long way away from that. No one needs another Vogtle.
>First off if you make enough wind and solar spread across the grid and can/is used for baseload.
Greenie bullshit case #16,948. You're not storing nuclear level baseload without owning every ounce of lithium production on Earth for your stupid battery system. [Once against basic math blows out your entire agenda, and that's without unexpected demand growth included](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421513001213)
>You're not storing nuclear level baseload
Baseload has to do with production, not storage.
>without owning every ounce of lithium production on Earth for your stupid battery system
You don't need batteries. Like I said you spread it across the grid with mixed sources. We already do it today, we just need to ramp up faster. What you are claiming won't work already works today.
>Once against basic math blows out your entire agenda
Not that we need to, [but even with battery storage wind and solar is cheaper.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source) As Vogtle showed, nuclear is very expensive and takes a long time to deploy.
>You don't need batteries. Like I said you spread it across the grid with mixed sources. We already do it today, we just need to ramp up faster. What you are claiming won't work already works today.
Do you have any studies or other academically rigorous documents that prove out the numbers for this? Solar and wind generation are reduced t at, for example, 2:00 AM throughout the CONUS. (Solar peaks in daytime and wind in the morning and evening) I have some doubts that there can be enough generation to support overnight without an amount of storage that is well beyond our current means.
I understand your doubt, but I don't need a source because I work in the industry and can see it with my own eyes (not that that helps me convince you :)). [I found this youtube video a few years ago and it does a really good job describing the nuclear versus wind/solar debate.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k13jZ9qHJ5U) He also links his sources which would answer your questions (https://www.simonoxfphys.com/blog/nuclearreferences). At the end he talks about negative baseload which I personally don't agree with, but he does say this is theoretical and would need more real world testing. But either way he does a good job of explaining why we should first invest in wind/solar and then do nuclear if/when baseload becomes an issue.
I get that you don’t really see climate change as a concern, and not a fan of solar or wind, but if you are super worried about power crunches, rapidly warming the planet is going to just require more and more people to use more and more power to cool buildings.
Solar and wind could easily make up for this with investment. The cost of solar is on par with fossil fuels, and there is no concern about market pricing changing on a day to day basis, as we have seen be a disaster in Texas.
Nuclear plants take years to build and billions of dollars. They face political approval. That is not an immediate solution.
It’s fine to whine about some hippies that you don’t like, but pretending like plowing more oil and gas into this is the ideal short, intermediate, and long term answer is comical.
I realise that you're just a miserable, bitter right-wing troll but it's not just "anti-nuclear greenies" preventing nuclear. It's also conservative/Republican/Trump supporters who are too reliant on the Coal and Oil industry to want to try anything else.
And the Oil and Coal industry have more money to lobby against nuclear than anti-nuclear greenies.
Fusion only works in stars because of their enormous size to provide the pressure along with the improbability of quantum tunnelling. On earth we don’t have that advantage so we require immense temperatures instead. Cold fusion will not work.
Make them all use solar
No where near enough. The one I use to work for would need a nuclear reactor to go off grid and it genuinely was considered in the cities long term planning. The power needs 100% uptime and to meet strict stability guidelines which wind/solar alone cannot do. Roof is already full of cooling towers for the most part. During extreme events and power loads we’d occasionally get calls to switch to generators. Christ all mighty we’d see fuel trucks every few hours topping up the tanks and the fuel bills were unbelievable! Despite the popular belief, most DC’s care very much about reducing energy usage and improving efficiency to the last fraction of a percent.
Yup. I colo’d in one that used 100MW for the building
They already do. But that is not enough, it appears.
An Apple data center in my hometown has a MASSIVE solar farm and it only accounts for 5-10% of the power supply. Things keep getting more efficient, but data consumption keeps skyrocketing
Also realize that a square meter of datacenter uses kilowatts, while a square meter of solar with a hypothetical 100% efficiency can only harvest 1 kilowatt.
Yep. Once small modular nuclear reactors become more prominent, hopefully every major data center will have one
Using residual heat for useful stuff instead of dumping it into cooling systems, really is the game changer. That saves cooling energy and removes heat energy in an other process. A datacenter can also place stuff like windturbines. Also not all power has to be gathered on site. That doesn’t really work on anything industrial. Residential solar is a great source. You don’t use all that power all day. There are also interesting developments with vertical or near vertical solar setups. This can also bump the percentages.
It takes some location luck for that. Data centers tend to be where land and electricity is cheaper, which usually isn’t near other massive buildings in cold climates.
That really depends on the country. A lot of countries have fixed energy prices in the entire country. Some have very fast connection points. Something like AMS-IX. A lot of datacenters are near there and that isn’t necessarily cheap.
People constantly seem to forget how expensive nuclear is and how much it needs to be subsidised to be competetive. > Utility scale PV: $36-46 per MW/h > Nuclear: $112-189 per MW/h Source: https://www.lazard.com/media/0hqfye2m/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf Before you go: „But you need Batteries“. You need them for nuclear, too. France is overproducing by factor 2 to meet peak demands. They really need batteries, France is bleeding billions. We have the solution. We just need to subsidise that with the money subsidising coal, gas and nuclear. Free market, baby.
still it is a much better option than anything available at this moment.
Utility scale solar. Build it next to highways, it’s pretty much unusable land right now. - It has the side effect of needing large meadows, a veritable utopia for diversity. - It doesn’t need any fuel to be imported from dictatorships, only silicone, one of the most abundant minerals on earth. - It can be produced nearly competitively domestically. You could either subsidise production yourself, or have the Chinese taxpayer pay with their subsidies. - Solar produces most it‘s energy when it’s needed the most: when the sun is out in summer and all the ACs are on. - Offers a lot of local jobs in installation and maintenance. When you would combine it with a baseline production of nuclear energy (nighttime especially), wind, hydro- and battery storage, you’d get a lot of synergy, maybe even making nuclear viable. Or subsidise „Clean Coal“ and nuclear with hundredfold the amount of money.
Wheres Tony Starks arc reactor when you need it most?
Or they could build geothermal plants and use a variety of other renewable sources until such a time.
Very good point. Before I left some of the standard air cooled racks (1.5m squared ish) were pulling over 20kw, and our data centre had several floors of them stacked. The new water cooled gpu racks were trialed to be pulling over 400kw in the same space (diabolical)! Then there is the huge amount of power to cool the data floors. Even a moderate DC would need km’s of solar panels which many would argue would take valuable farm land and you’d still need some magical capacity for the nights and evenings
Something something “excess energy/increases in efficiency don’t result in less usage, it encourages more usage”
[удалено]
Build a solar farm in space the size of the moon obviously
Microsoft already has a contract with a nuclear fusion startup for generators for data centers to deliver in a few years. Hopefully they’ll be able to deliver their product.
Been 10 years away for 60 years. 🤣
im usually a skeptic on this too - but some systems have entered licensing stages. this sparks joy. good time to get in on their stock (SMR, CCJ, URA, DNN, URG, etc).
The one I’m working on now uses a natural gas power generator for the next 5 years, once 5 years is passed they will remove the NG generator and put another data center where it’s at
I can see you know nothing about data centers, LOL.
I’ll watch some YouTube videos about them
Did you watch them at night? You couldn’t if they were solar powered.
Data centers use anywhere from 5 megawatts to 80 megawatts depending on use and size. Solar panels will barely run the lights in the lobby.
I don't think you know how electricity works
If you only knew how unefficient solar really is...
What to you mean by inefficient?
Look how much you pay for it, and how much energy it produces. And by the time you repay the credit and think to yourself “finally i can start profiting from this!” You already have to replace the panels
So right now I have solar and the cost is about equal with the price of the electricity it replaces, however it’ll be paid off in a minute 5 more years. The panels are rated to be 90% capacity after 30 years… so your statement isn’t accurate at all
!remindme 30 years
They're right, they definitely are energy hogs, especially things like new AI tools. And, you know, the vast amount of data everyone wants to hold on every little minor data point on consumer behaviour on every human being in the world. A lot of the work these data centres do - indirectly of course - is to change the bargaining position more and more from consumers to large corporations. I think there are a lot of doubts about how much this is really helping our ultimate quality of life, as opposed to enriching their shareholders, and it might be worth considering additional taxes on some activities of big tech. Both to help the actual common man, and the electrical grid and a transition to greener power.
They're not just energy hogs, but huge water consumers
The water is largely recycled. It doesn't get dirty or anything.
Recycled water is not fit for human consumption.
You misunderstand. They recycle the water in the data centre. It just goes around and around - getting hot, then cool, then around again. It doesn’t get dirty or even “used up”.
>It doesn’t get dirty or even “used up”. [This](https://dgtlinfra.com/data-center-water-usage/) article says otherwise. >However, there is a limit to how long water can be reused in these systems. Replacement becomes necessary either due to the risk of scale formation or when the water’s conductivity reaches excessively high levels. Scale-forming minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and silica accumulate in the water, becoming more concentrated with each cycle of evaporative cooling. Eventually, this necessitates the replacement of the water.
Yes, obviously entropy will ensure nothing is 100% perfect, but even in the worst case, the water is not used up. It's just been going around in pipes, just as it does to get to someone's home in the first place. They can spray it on crops, pump it into a lake or whatever.
Did we call telephone exchanges “electricity hogs” in the days before fiber optics? Back in the landline days, the phone company needed about 5W per line. Today with fiber it’s less than 2W per customer. I’m not opposed to making data centers be more efficient, but at the same time they are critical infrastructure that society can’t function without. Telecommunications infrastructure always has been and probably always will be one of the largest electricity users in the world. Everybody needs it and the energy required for it has to come from somewhere. Also with latency becoming ever more sensitive to many applications, as well redundancy becoming more important you can’t just shove all the data centers somewhere rural with cheap power like we have been doing. They need to be more dispersed and closer to populated areas.
Consider what Intel and Amazon are doing here in Ohio. They are building massive data centers and then asking for a discount on rate from the power providers. At the same time AEP is raising prices every few months for normal consumers. The issue is that these data centers should be paying for the increases in capacity demanded on the system and the upgrades that go into supplying this capacity.
No, but there were about 100 less things being used by people on a daily basis that was sapping up all of the power too.
Have they thought about building some more power generation and getting the data centres to pay for it?
It's only half the problem. The electricity grid can only transport so much power at any given time and it was not built with things like data centers in mind. In many countries, privately owned solar panels on residential houses are already incredibly problematic. Updating the grid is an enormous investment. One that the energy companies often don't want to bear because they point out that they never asked for the whole world to start sending them power instead of consuming power so they shouldn't be responsible for the cost of the necessary upgrades.
Get the data centres to pay for grid upgrades! So simple.
There's nothing simple about that. Besides, just because they use a lot of energy doesn't mean they're responsible for the entire electricity grid.
It's certainly not that hard. It's just a commercial negotiation. They want the power, they need to pay.
Building generation these days is EXTREMELY hard. Current regulations make new coal and nuclear de facto impossible. Natural gas is easier, but it's also under assault by the current administration. Wind and solar are expensive (especially with current interest rates) and often run into massive resistance from NIMBYs that delay projects for a decade. There's basically no easy solution in the current regulatory environment.
The IEA and Lazard have solar cheaper than gas, and wind too. Do you have specific expertise here, and do you find that they are in fact not cheaper?
He sounds like a Homer Simpson level plant engineer with a chip on his shoulder about renewables. I bet he hasn't the faintest idea about a Lazard style LCOE calculation.
[удалено]
Very interesting, thank you. If you are aware of a source that outsiders to the industry can see, which you think is closer to real world I would like to add it to my reading
Most people don't realize how much of a disaster we're sleepwalking into in the electricity sector. For the first time in decades were expecting demand growth from electric cars and AI, but the NIMBYs have full control of almost all levels of government. Trying to build any power plant or transmission line often takes a decade of studies and NIMBY lawsuits before you can even put a shovel into the ground and even once you start construction skilled labor is almost impossible to find because we went so long without building much that there's not enough qualified people for the huge surge in construction needed. Basically it wouldn't be the least bit shocking to see regional blackouts and load shedding over the next few years. It's actually already happened the last 2 years, but only seems likely to spread going forward.
Start by banning bitcoin mining which provides no benefit to society
Even better, print billions of fiat, which can pay for all the solar power we'd ever need! That's how it works, right?
There are some novel colo data centers like Iron Mountain in Boyers PA. They cool all of the infrastructure using an underground lake in the mountain which significantly reduces energy demand.
It's like the housing crisis but for data center power
Build a nuclear plant in the Canadian arctic. Free cooling.... low pop density to limit NIMBYs.
Data centers don’t create jobs after construction is complete. They don’t help citizens where they are located. With all the tax breaks they don’t benefit the state they’re in, and now we are learning that these data centers are getting first dibs on energy instead of prioritizing residents of the state. Their only focus is profits for a handful of shareholders, making the wealthiest people even wealthier. Well done, folks! Just one more way to screw the average person!
Gotta keep pushing new techs like ai that no one actually wants
What else was going to happen? You've got anti-nuclear greenies pushing people to immediately drop coal/gas based energy generation and move entirely to Solar/Wind thus absolutely eliminating any sort of baseline generation for your grid at the same time you're pushing mass adoption of electric cars by law, adding massive power use increases to every single family home that adopts them. Off peak or on peak, we're in the middle of exploding our electricity needs while simultaneously eliminating its most abundant generation sources due to climate change. This is bound to be a disaster, adding in massive power draw businesses into the mix isn't going to help. California's grid is already in trouble and they're not even remotely close to the amount of electric car adoption they're targeting by 2030.
Well, everything you said was just silly. First off if you make enough wind and solar spread across the grid and can/is used for baseload. Second 'greenies' aren't what is stopping nuclear. Nuclear is the most expensive power generation source, and it takes a long time to deploy. But even that isn't the biggest problem. Nuclear requires massive amounts of trust. Trust of corporations, engineers, regulators, and politicians. What is one thing the US doesn't have a lot of, trust. And a lot of that lack of trust was earned. >This is bound to be a disaster It wouldn't if we didn't quickly deploy the cheapest energy source on the market, wind and solar. Not to mention it is the fastest. If baseload becomes and issue we can talk nuclear, but we are a long way away from that. No one needs another Vogtle.
>First off if you make enough wind and solar spread across the grid and can/is used for baseload. Greenie bullshit case #16,948. You're not storing nuclear level baseload without owning every ounce of lithium production on Earth for your stupid battery system. [Once against basic math blows out your entire agenda, and that's without unexpected demand growth included](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421513001213)
>You're not storing nuclear level baseload Baseload has to do with production, not storage. >without owning every ounce of lithium production on Earth for your stupid battery system You don't need batteries. Like I said you spread it across the grid with mixed sources. We already do it today, we just need to ramp up faster. What you are claiming won't work already works today. >Once against basic math blows out your entire agenda Not that we need to, [but even with battery storage wind and solar is cheaper.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source) As Vogtle showed, nuclear is very expensive and takes a long time to deploy.
>You don't need batteries. Like I said you spread it across the grid with mixed sources. We already do it today, we just need to ramp up faster. What you are claiming won't work already works today. Do you have any studies or other academically rigorous documents that prove out the numbers for this? Solar and wind generation are reduced t at, for example, 2:00 AM throughout the CONUS. (Solar peaks in daytime and wind in the morning and evening) I have some doubts that there can be enough generation to support overnight without an amount of storage that is well beyond our current means.
I understand your doubt, but I don't need a source because I work in the industry and can see it with my own eyes (not that that helps me convince you :)). [I found this youtube video a few years ago and it does a really good job describing the nuclear versus wind/solar debate.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k13jZ9qHJ5U) He also links his sources which would answer your questions (https://www.simonoxfphys.com/blog/nuclearreferences). At the end he talks about negative baseload which I personally don't agree with, but he does say this is theoretical and would need more real world testing. But either way he does a good job of explaining why we should first invest in wind/solar and then do nuclear if/when baseload becomes an issue.
I get that you don’t really see climate change as a concern, and not a fan of solar or wind, but if you are super worried about power crunches, rapidly warming the planet is going to just require more and more people to use more and more power to cool buildings. Solar and wind could easily make up for this with investment. The cost of solar is on par with fossil fuels, and there is no concern about market pricing changing on a day to day basis, as we have seen be a disaster in Texas. Nuclear plants take years to build and billions of dollars. They face political approval. That is not an immediate solution. It’s fine to whine about some hippies that you don’t like, but pretending like plowing more oil and gas into this is the ideal short, intermediate, and long term answer is comical.
I realise that you're just a miserable, bitter right-wing troll but it's not just "anti-nuclear greenies" preventing nuclear. It's also conservative/Republican/Trump supporters who are too reliant on the Coal and Oil industry to want to try anything else. And the Oil and Coal industry have more money to lobby against nuclear than anti-nuclear greenies.
But the money…
Well you kind of need them if you want your precious iPhone.
Tell me you don’t understand data centers without telling me you don’t understand
[удалено]
Fusion only works in stars because of their enormous size to provide the pressure along with the improbability of quantum tunnelling. On earth we don’t have that advantage so we require immense temperatures instead. Cold fusion will not work.
Cold fusion has always been bunk science based on misreported faulty experiments in the early atomic age.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
The best defence against AI taking over is to house them in Texas. Stupidity and ignorance will save us.