tanteJun 28

Google's emissions are up over 50%, Amazon builds huge data centers powered by 75% natural gas.

Remember all those posts telling us that "AIs climate impact isn't that bad" supported by some really funky math/perspective and/or numbers Sam Altman invented?

Here's the actual impact.

"AI" is a fossil fuel technology.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/technology/amazon-ai-data-centers.html?unlocked_article_code=1.SU8.2JRa.e3Ju6r_pL1Im

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/27/google-emissions-ai-electricity-demand-derail-efforts-green

At Amazon’s Biggest Data Center, Everything Is Supersized for A.I.

On 1,200 acres of cornfield in Indiana, Amazon is building one of the largest computers ever for work with Anthropic, an artificial intelligence start-up.

The New York Times
Show threadKatika KühnreichJun 28

@tante
…and they are trying to bring back #nuclear with #AI …

While #nuclearenergy is not #fossil it not #green at all - but #colonial , #deadly & totally unfair because, like in AI, the #profits are being privatised, the costs are hitting the whole #society & the #planet

But from the point of view of someone believing in #cybernetics or one of its #TESCREAL grandchildren it is great - because in cybernetics EVERY problem will be solved in "the future" by "technology"

Show threadMarcJun 28
@Katika @tante Everything may be true. But everyone uses AI, nobody wants to do without it. Then I'd rather use nuclear power, which is low in CO2, than coal and gas.
Show threadKatika KühnreichJun 28

@Kuttenfunker @tante

Well, not everyone. Some by choice, some by not having access

And nuclear is only low in CO2 if you find a ready build nuclear power plant and a store of ready-to-use nuclear fuel

And do not take any of the storage/treatment of waste into your calculation

And… much more

Nuclear is deadly. And shifts responsibility to later generation that were not asked nor do they profit

We do not even have a form of communication that can exist as long as nuclear is deadly

Show threadTom RitchfordJun 28

@Katika @Kuttenfunker @tante

Who wrote this comment? Exxon?

> Nuclear is deadly.

https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought

Eight million dead every year already from fossil fuels. But once the climate catastrophe really gets going, most of humanity will be gone.

And one of the reasons we will kill the planet is this insane idea that nuclear is more dangerous than fossil fuels.

Watching the environmental movement ignore fossil fuels while destroying nuclear power has been just horrifying.

Deaths from fossil fuel emissions higher than previously thought

Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018

Show threadLittle Art HistoriesJun 28
@TomSwirly @Katika @Kuttenfunker @tante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste - and where should the waste go? What do you want to do with it? There is no safe solution. This is just dumb. The only reason they are still talking about nuclear energy, gas and coal is that a handful of people would profit from it. Renewable energy has to be decentralized and there is not much to gain for corporations. That is the only reason they hate it so much.
Ocean disposal of radioactive waste - Wikipedia

Show threadMarcJun 28
@art_histories @TomSwirly @Katika @tante For nuclear waste, there are power plants that can process the nuclear waste down to a harmless amount of residual radiation.
Show threadMark BurtonJun 28
@Kuttenfunker @art_histories @TomSwirly @Katika @tante
Where?
Sellafield, where the UK and several other countries' waste goes has an enormous store of lethal radioactive waste for which there is no solution.
Show threadTom RitchfordJun 29

@markhburton @Kuttenfunker @art_histories @Katika @tante Vitrified and put back into the original mines, for example.

IF the world didn't have a terminal issue with over two *trillion* tonnes of waste CO2 in the atmosphere, I wouldn't be suggesting this.

Show threadMark BurtonJun 29
@TomSwirly @Kuttenfunker @art_histories @Katika @tante
No such geological facility exists.
Meanwhile Sellafield stores such an enormous amount of radioactive waste (including 2,000 cannisters vitrified) that a major fire (terrorism? war? accident?) would render the area around unlivable for generations and require evacuation of Liverpool, Manchester and other cities.
Show threadMark Burton
@TomSwirly @Kuttenfunker @art_histories @Katika @tante
Sure, burning fossil fuels must stop but nuclear isn't the answer. Only massive, managed energy descent is. That means a transformation on how we all live a massive ask, I know.
Jun 29 at 9:14amWeb
Show threadMarcJun 29
@markhburton @TomSwirly @art_histories @Katika @tante
Show threadTom RitchfordJun 30

@Kuttenfunker @markhburton @art_histories @Katika @tante

This is the biggest problem ever to face the human race, and yet you seem to think it's a great big joke.

Every day my opinion of humanity falls another notch.

Show threadTom RitchfordJul 1

@markhburton @Kuttenfunker @art_histories @Katika @tante

We can certainly agree that a managed energy descent would be the best way. And honestly, we know that isn't going to happen.

So nuclear will delay the inevitable, but make the final result somewhat worse.

Given the horribleness of humans, perhaps it's not worth trying to eke out survival a bit longer that way.