derekullo jp7189 said: Solar? Lol. 7GW nat gas is the equivalent of 280 square miles of solar panels, and a heck of a lot of batteries. Food crops are a better choice for that land area. Im working on a datacenter project where they are covering every visible spot with solar to make the people happy. It amounts to just enough to power the lighting and some convenience plugs. No actual equipment. Long story, short, solar is just lip service for people that dont understand the scale of the math involved in these projects. The obvious solution is dont build the datacenters in the first place, but thats not gonna happen. ..and i agree that nuclear is by far the best choice, but popular opinion will never let that happen, so nat gas is all thats left. Take a look into agrivoltaics. Agrivoltaics is the dual-use co-location of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and agriculture on the same land, optimizing land productivity by combining energy generation with crop cultivation, livestock grazing, or pollinator habitats. It reduces water usage, offers farmers diversified income, and provides shade to crops. Agrivoltaics operates by elevating panels or spacing them to allow sunlight and rain to reach the ground, or by placing panels over specialized crops. The panels provide partial shade, reducing heat stress on plants and reducing irrigation water requirements Reply
Shiznizzle jp7189 said: Solar? Lol. 7GW nat gas is the equivalent of 280 square miles of solar panels, and a heck of a lot of batteries. Food crops are a better choice for that land area. Im working on a datacenter project where they are covering every visible spot with solar to make the people happy. It amounts to just enough to power the lighting and some convenience plugs. No actual equipment. Long story, short, solar is just lip service for people that dont understand the scale of the math involved in these projects. The obvious solution is dont build the datacenters in the first place, but thats not gonna happen. ..and i agree that nuclear is by far the best choice, but popular opinion will never let that happen, so nat gas is all thats left. What will you do with the waste that nobody wants when it lasts 100.000 years? The waste will live longer than the english language. Tidal currents produced energy needs more looking at. Reply
usertests Shiznizzle said: What will you do with the waste that nobody wants when it lasts 100.000 years? The waste will live longer than the english language. Newer designs could produce less waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor Another notable MSR feature is the possibility of a thermal spectrum nuclear waste-burner. Conventionally only fast spectrum reactors have been considered viable for utilization or reduction of the spent nuclear fuel. Thermal waste-burning was achieved by replacing a fraction of the uranium in the spent nuclear fuel with thorium. The net production rate of transuranic elements (e.g. plutonium and americium) is below the consumption rate, thus reducing the nuclear storage problem, without the nuclear proliferation concerns and other technical issues associated with a fast reactor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor The fast spectrum is key to breeder reactors, which convert highly abundant uranium-238 into fissile plutonium-239, without requiring enrichment. It also leads to high burnup: many transuranic isotopes, such as of americium and curium, accumulate in thermal reactor spent fuel; in fast reactors they undergo fast fission, reducing total nuclear waste. As a strong fast-spectrum neutron source, they can also be used to transmute existing nuclear waste into manageable or non-radioactive isotopes. In the GEN IV initiative, about two thirds of the proposed reactors for the future use a fast spectrum. Reply
SSGBryan A nuclear power plant will take 3 – 4 times as long to build. None of this stuff is ever getting built; it is nothing but announcements. Reply
helper800 Shiznizzle said: What will you do with the waste that nobody wants when it lasts 100.000 years? The waste will live longer than the english language. Tidal currents produced energy needs more looking at. If you are referring to nuclear energy, you have not done enough reading. None of the high level or intermediate level radioactive waste lasts 100k years at any level of radioactivity that matters. Even high level waste is easily dealt with. Tidal energy is never going to produce more than 1 or 2 percent of the worlds energy needs even if focused on, its a dead end. Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/meta-will-fund-seven-new-gas-plants-to-power-its-7gw-louisiana-data-center#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com
- Into the Omniverse: How Industrial AI and Digital Twins Accelerate Design, Engineering and Manufacturing Across Industries
- Hong Kong border agents and police can demand device passwords, including from US citizens, under penalty of imprisonment — border controls become more invasive
- Logitech G522 Lightspeed Wireless Gaming Headset Review
- US Senators call for a halt to Nvidia GPU exports in the wake of the Super Micro scandal — looming Chip Security Act may put a wrench into Huang's China ambitio
- Trucker shows off $6,000 PC driving sim rig in passenger seat — driver slides over to RTX 5080-powered setup when stuck in traffic
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.