> Because they need power 24/7 and not only when the weather cooperates.

Hence the batteries.

The scale just isn't there. A single nuclear power plant near me, McGuire Nuclear Power Plant, produced 17,514 GW·h in 2005. The entire potential output of the Tesla (cough Panasonic) Gigafactories in California and China have a combined output of ~50 GWh per year. [0] Nuclear power is amazing at producing a reliable base load of power that massively outstrips our ability to produce and store solar power. Say our load is well aligned with the cycle of solar power and we're ignoring weather so we can derate the amount we want to store to 30% that's 105 years of production out of what I think is the two largest batter plants in existence to store the power produced continuously by a single large nuclear power plant.

[0] https://www.fuld.com/tesla-energy-massive-growth-in-megapack...

I don't follow your sums. 50GWh of battery cycled once a day for a year is: 18,250 GWh

So you seem out by around 100x.

...sometimes the brain is smoothed by meetings...

Global stationary storage deployed for 2024 will be ~150GWh, and this is accelerating. Batteries are easy, nuclear appears to be impossible (economically speaking).

So 35 years then to store the power generated 24/7 by McGuire at that rate of production which ignores that the huge spike of AI loads will want 24/7 power, if we're looking at that kind of load I'd rate it at 50% for starters (low to be honest because it doesn't account for how solar ramps up during the day) which is around 60 years. Plus that's giving full capacity to those batteries when ideally we'd only use the middle 60% to avoid deep cycling the batteries daily unless they've completely solved that problem.

The nuclear ain't getting built, these are facts. Even if one breaks ground today, you won't push your first kwh to the grid for a decade, at which point another ~10TW of clean energy will have come online globally.

If AI is using too much power in the short term, destroy demand with policy and economics. We are not beholden to the robot trainers, we just don't provide utility access to the load. Unlimited demand of industrial scales of electrical power isn't a right of some sort.

What other activities are prohibited in your dream dictatorship?

Not burning coal, forcing the phase out of combustion vehicles and fossil gas for electric generation, just the usual things so humans can survive on this planet. I’m sure I can find more voters who desire a habitable planet for continued survival than there are AI proponents and capitalists who want AI at any cost, externalities be damned.

Everyone is a libertarian until it’s their commons experiencing the tragedy.

> Everyone is a libertarian until it’s their commons experiencing the tragedy.

Yeah sure and everyone is a socialist utopian until its their own money/liberty on the line.

If we cannot “collectively” reach a consensus what happens?

Im just pointing out that the original suggestion of “ban ML for environmental reasons” is extreme/ham-fisted. This is what dictatorships do in real life all over the globe “for the greater good”.

Should crypto be a government-approved use of energy? What about manufacturing semiconductors? Building data centers? Producing EVs, solar farms or batteries? Are flights for vacation allowed?

You aren’t thinking about the second order impact of having a government that has the ability to gatekeep energy production for specific use cases…

Citation for my sibling comment and that which you replied to:

https://www.energy-storage.news/arizonas-biggest-battery-sto... (“Arizona’s biggest battery storage system goes online to feed Meta data centre demand”)

https://orsted.com/en/media/news/2024/10/orsted-has-complete... (“With a 300 MW solar PV capacity, Ørsted’s Eleven Mile Solar Center will produce enough renewable energy to power 65,000 US homes while the battery can store 1200 MWh of power.”)

(~2 years from planning to commissioning)

1.2gw of storage means in 4hr it's gone if solar and wind are weak

And can be recharged as soon as the wind or the sun comes back.

The sizing of batteries and power sources is highly region specific, and the places where it makes sense today with current manufacturing capacity, don't have to be "everywhere" for it to be fine where it's actually done; and given the roll out rate of renewables, we also don't need to wait until battery output per year can totally displace the existing and currently running gas plants, just back up the newly installed renewables themselves - 4h in this case is how fast the PV farm would recharge those batteries in the best case, the average output of a PV plant is about 10% of the peak, so this is really a 40 hour battery pack not a 4 hour pack.

I mean, look at Germany's grid yesterday& today and tell me, with such overcapacity, how much more overcapacity it would need and how much storage it would need to cover such events with low wind and solar?

I use the approximation of annual capacity factors for PV being 10%, which means 10x. Wind has a higher capacity factor IIRC between 35% and 85% and that heavily depends on location.

A realistic answer would need me to spend at least a month dealing with finding historical satellite cloud cover data, wind records, correlations leading to nationwide dunkelflaute, the planning options for where new stuff can be built, etc.

And even then, that varies depending on international grid connections, and how much storage is on the grid.

cf yearly are good for some purposes but bad for others. Again, look at Germany's coal/gas use yesterday vs today as well as wind/solar generation and imports. If you don't want fossils, how would you cover such events? France was outputting towards Germany equivalent of 3-4 npp and 2 additional from Switzerland, max being about 12+GW from neighbors. How would it be financially viable considering there are many other days when demand will be met for day hours? New solar/wind will not be able to sell energy at negative prices unless they get subsidies. Germany already spends 20bn/yr for price subsidies and their grid is far from overcapacity and that doesn't account for other subsidy types like for transmission for renewables

Today's values, from what I've seen, this country could run on just wind if it had 10x more than now, but it doesn't really need that in isolation, it's just that PV was harder to judge because the graph wasn't even close to a flat line.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/power/live-eu-electricity-gener...

> New solar/wind will not be able to sell energy at negative prices unless they get subsidies.

They already do, in good weather.

> 20bn/yr for price subsidies and their grid is far from overcapacity

And how much of that was for a guaranteed price made way back when the stuff was still expensive?

New PV is, by itself, the single cheapest source of electricity; even adding on batteries only takes it up to somewhere between gas and nuclear depending on the specifics.

> and that doesn't account for other subsidy types like for transmission for renewables

How's that a subsidy? I've not seen the breakdown of bill costs here, but back in the UK there was a split between connection cost and use cost.

transmission upgrades are needed for renewables due to their distributed nature https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-looks-specia...

> They already do, in good weather.

We haven't reached yet such renewable market penetration to get this problem. It'll happen when a lot of days, 10 day hours will be covered by renewable output.

> And how much of that was for a guaranteed price made way back when the stuff was still expensive?

I have no idea how are these are distributed. Do you have a link for recent vs old projects?

Having enough battery capacity to back up enough energy for a few minutes let alone days would require a lot of resources.

I think scaling nuclear power would be cheaper and more environmentally friendly.

Cheaper? No, not even close. Environmentally friendly? Debatable, but wait for new tech.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/iron-air-battery-renew...

yes it'll be cheaper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/

note the word "could"

We have heard better and better batteries being just around the corner for decades at this point.

Sure, maybe a few percent better, but nothing ground breaking.

look at germany's yesterday output and tell me how much batteries they'd need to cover such a drop in generation