from the see-this-great-thing-we're-going-to-do-next-decade? dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The search giant will purchase small reactors to provide energy that will enable the growth of energy-guzzling AI technologies.
Google has signed a corporate agreement to purchase nuclear energy from small modular reactors (SMRs) to be developed by Kairos Power in the US. The search giant claimed this deal will “accelerate the clean energy transition across the US”.
According to Google, Kairos will bring its first SMR online “quickly and safely” by 2030, with more reactors to be deployed by 2035. “Overall, this deal will enable up to 500MW of new 24/7 carbon-free power to US electricity grids and help more communities benefit from clean and affordable nuclear power,” said Michael Terrell, Google’s senior director for energy and climate. The financial details of the deal were not disclosed.
The move by Google and other tech companies to find more and bigger sources of energy to power their data centres is in large part due to the artificial intelligence (AI) boom. AI models require huge computing power. An industry report estimates that the proportion of power used for AI in data centres globally will grow to 10pc next year, up from about 2pc this year.
“Overall, our total GHG emissions increased by 13pc [year over year] – highlighting the challenge of reducing emissions while compute intensity increases and we grow our technical infrastructure investment to support this AI transition,” Google said at the time.
“Predicting the future environmental impact of AI is complex and evolving, and our historical trends likely don’t fully capture AI’s future trajectory.”
[...] Kairos Power was founded in 2016 with the goal of developing “innovative nuclear technology”. The company only secured permission to build a test reactor in December last year. The reactor is called Hermes and will be based in Tennessee. In February, the US Department of Energy agreed to provide up to $303m to help build Hermes.
It is possible that Google’s SMRs will face delays. The completion date for Hermes has already slipped to 2027 in the time since permission to build was granted, according to an article in MIT Technology Review. The issue of sourcing uranium was also highlighted in this article. After Russian’s invasion of Ukraine, the US banned uranium imports from Russia and now has just three years’ supply left. Kairos says it is working with a European consortium to source uranium.
Related Stories
Chevron, one of the world's largest oil companies, has announced plans to enter the rapidly growing field of artificial intelligence by building natural gas power plants directly connected to data centers:
These facilities will supply electricity to technology companies leveraging AI and other high-powered computing services, reported The New York Times. The move highlights the increasing energy demands of AI technologies and Chevron's strategic shift to diversify its operations beyond traditional oil and gas.
The company's CEO, Mike Wirth, revealed the initiative during a recent industry conference, emphasizing the role Chevron could play in bridging energy production and digital innovation. As data centers consume enormous amounts of electricity to support AI-driven computations, Chevron's natural gas plants are positioned to offer a reliable and efficient energy source. This strategy allows Chevron to capitalize on its core expertise in energy production while contributing to a sector that's reshaping industries globally.
[...] The company plans to integrate carbon capture technologies into its power plants to offset their environmental impact. Additionally, Chevron has committed to exploring renewable energy options alongside its natural gas operations, suggesting a balanced approach to meeting current energy demands while investing in a low-carbon future.
Related:
- Nuclear Woes for Proposed Data Centers - Amazon and Meta
- Google Plans to Go Nuclear With its Data Centres
- AI's Energy Appetite Too Big for Texas, Regulators Warn
- Plan Would Power New Microsoft AI Data Center From Pa.'s Three Mile Island 'Unit 1' Nuclear Reactor
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday October 18 2024, @03:43AM (12 children)
As Big Tech guzzles more and more energy, that's energy that won't go towards useful things, like heating people's homes or agriculture. And it'll take more than a few nuclear piles to quench AI's unending appetite.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday October 18 2024, @05:28AM (9 children)
Or we could just generate more energy. We're far from a zero sum game here.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Friday October 18 2024, @08:40AM (8 children)
This is one of the aspects of our modern western society I don't understand. Why don't we just make more? More power, more food, more everything. Instead we seem to just try to save ourselves into the future by austerity. We should just create more power, electricity should be dirt cheap. Food should be plentiful, and dirt cheap. They should basically be borderline free or the sum to pay and use utilities should just have a token cost at best. We know how to make it. Just build it!
I don't exactly have fond feelings for Google becoming a nuclear power, or any tech company for that matter. But if they want to guzzle down nuclear quantities of electricity. Then they can build their own, as long as they follow the same rules for nuclear power as everyone else and they set aside the funds for if it would go boom. Just build more.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday October 18 2024, @09:26AM (7 children)
You might not have noticed, but we live on something called a planet that can't fulfill your desire for more.
Other than that teeny tiny problem, yeah you're right: we should have everything for nothing. A post-scarcity society is great when there is no scarcity!
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday October 18 2024, @11:31AM (2 children)
Actually, it can and will. I don't see the point of making this denial. And when we actually do reach a genuine limitation of Earth, there's always space. Seems appropriate that pie in the sky pays for same, right?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday October 18 2024, @12:56PM (1 child)
Dude, what are you smoking? [wikipedia.org]
Or you are an alien visiting backwater solar systems and you haven't realized you've landed on the Haiti of the Universe.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 18 2024, @11:56PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday October 18 2024, @11:34AM (1 child)
Yup: the more power we have, the more we consume.
The more food we have, the more babies we have, the more we consume (or the more McToilets we build and the more we consume and the fatter we get).
More, more, more, How do you like it? How do you like it?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 18 2024, @11:57PM
Then food must be very scarce in the developed world - which has the lowest birthrates in the world! /sarc
(Score: 4, Interesting) by looorg on Friday October 18 2024, @12:44PM (1 child)
I'm aware that we live on a planet. But it's a self imposed scarcity. It's a created phenomenon. The planet doesn't give two fucks about if we build 100 nuclear power plants or not. If we invent Fusion power or not. It doesn't care if you electricity is free or you get gauged every month. We might as well not get gauged and then use our near infinite electricity for everything. We know how to grow basically infinite food. We just don't have a good system of logistics, or good enough.
But this fantasy and self induced scarcity or austerity is just beyond crap. We can't save ourselves into the future. If we could we should go back to live like stoneage people. That just isn't going to happen. We can only go forward by spending and doing more and better. The only reason this appear to exists is some kind of weird economical system that makes about zero sense in this regard. We know how to build and produce basically infinite resources but chose not to do so, for "reasons". The planet isn't one of them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 19 2024, @12:35AM
This. It's one thing to have a concrete environmental problem like breathability of the atmosphere. It's another to block human progress with complete bullshit. In this discussion we have two such: a bogus measure of consumption versus capacity (Earth Overshoot Day [wikipedia.org]) and invoking Malthusianism [soylentnews.org] even though it doesn't take much brain power to find that the model is completely broken.
If someone out there has a real concern why more power is bad, then sure, bring it up. But don't bring up fake problems and expect us to care.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Friday October 18 2024, @08:52AM
Having AI tech in the lead certainly comes with its own ethical problems. OTOH, we need fast breeder technology for a number of reasons IMHO. If AI companies are going to foot the development bill, I'm for it if there is nobody else chipping in.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Deep Blue on Friday October 18 2024, @06:44PM
Some of it will go as district heating to buildings, because those data centers heat up a lot and they need to be cooled. Might as well put it to good use.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2024, @11:30AM (3 children)
The search giant will purchase small reactors to provide energy that will enable the growth of energy-guzzling AI technologies.
Just like the crypto boys did before their bubble popped in 2021
Same playbook, same grifters.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 19 2024, @06:33AM (2 children)
Show there is a genuine problem and people actually harmed first. Then we can talk about what to do about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2024, @01:39PM (1 child)
I think it is wiser to turn away from the collision course with the iceberg than to wait to hit it and see if anyone suffers harm. After all, you can find an engineer or two to doubt the iceberg will damage the hull, so the engineering is far from settled. Besides, the scientists and engineers on board will probably find some new tech to avert the collision before it happens anyway. The important thing is if the ship changes course, it will mess up the transit schedule and that will affect the company profit (and though it might seem reasonable to reinvest that profit into developing better iceberg avoidance technology, the more pressing need for it is for executive compensation because it is imperative that "the best" executive talent is secured to make the important decisions on setting executive compensation).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 19 2024, @09:35PM
In other words, no evidence for harm. I see further in the post you make excuses for why you would ignore evidence: "you can find an engineer or two to doubt the iceberg will damage the hull, so the engineering is far from settled", "the scientists and engineers on board will probably find some new tech to avert the collision before it happens anyway", and the gibberish about executive compensation.