131

Microsoft Looks to Nuclear to Fuel AI Plans (tech.co)

submitted 9 months ago by lntl@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Data centers, the things that physically store and share applications and data, require an enormous amount of energy to run. These giant storage units, responsible for 1-1.5% of global electricity consumption, have traditionally relied on renewable sources like solar and wind but it seems as though renewable energy just won’t be able to keep up with the demand required moving forward.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] pizzazz@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Funny how everyone is immediately concerned with a few thousands of cubic meters of solid waste that literally loses its harm exponentially quickly and we can store underground while all the billions of tons of toxic liquid and gaseous waste coming from a sleuth of industrial applications (including renewables production) constantly being pumped in the biosphere never get a mention

[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I could be wrong but I thought rate of decay was a logarithmic function, not exponential.

[-] pizzazz@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Rate of decay for a specific isotope is constant, so its abundance decays exponentially. Of course a species can transmute in a new radionuclide so the process in total will not be exactly exponential, but pretty close. Seen on a log scale it's awfully close to a straight line

[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This link shows that the number of nuclides decreases at a slower rate as time goes on. Opposite of an exponential function.

As time progresses the rate at which the nuclear waste decays into innert matter is slower and slower. This is not at all an exponential rate.

So I don't think it's correct to say "loses its harm exponentially."

It "loses its harm" more slowly as time goes on

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/31-5-half-life-and-activity/

[-] pizzazz@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Sorry what? That link literally explains the exponential decay of radioisotopes.

[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Exponential decay is not the same as "exponentially losing its harm"

It very slowly "loses its harm" and as time progresses, it gets even slower.

The inverse of an exponential function is still an exponential function.

[-] pizzazz@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The harm of ionizing radiation is given by the activity of the source. Which decays exponentially. You should not go on the internet lecturing people you don't know about things you don't understand.

Also, you moved the goalpost: first you claimed waste "doesn't decay exponentially" and then without acknowledging it, you now claim that "exponential decay is not the same as losing harm exponentially"

[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I concede that it is exponential and not logarithmic, but the original statement of yours "loses its harm exponentially" is what got us going down this tangent. I think that statement is misleading, because the truth is that the waste loses its harm exponentially slower as time goes on.