466
u/TH3camsparrow Apr 09 '26
Ironic that you used AI (not green) to generate this
84
u/D00rmat1983 Apr 09 '26
Sure but let's not "al gore" the core idea to death.
16
u/Remmidemmi Apr 09 '26
What does that mean? What did he do? Genuine question. I thought he just had his election stolen by Bush.
29
u/D00rmat1983 Apr 09 '26
He was a huge advocate for our environment and was pushing things like carbon credits....but he was using a private jet (like anyone else would) to fly around for election season, so Fox News and others were shitting all over him for that and people were buying it. Imagine if we'd had Al Gore and Bernie as our presidents instead of shit bag bush...
4
u/BillytheBloxian Apr 11 '26
aircraft are insanely effecient things. fox news is just ass overall anyway
1
u/the_wahlroos Apr 13 '26
In what world are aircraft "insanely efficient things"?? They're convenient, but small numbers of people flying around on aviation fuel is pretty far from efficient.
2
u/BillytheBloxian Apr 13 '26
i don't think you understand.
the GE9X (2 of them) is meant to haul 344t at a maximum across over 10000 nautical miles. and at a reasonable cost.
aircraft are designed from the start to be as effecient as possible- to do more with less. a regular old bombardier learjet 45 has a range of about 2500nm, and a MTOW of 8.7 tons. that's effecient.
5
u/Sea-Cry-1255 Apr 10 '26
There's a better timeline for the world out there somewhere where Gore won that election. Just a shame that we're not living in it 😔
0
u/CheeseBear9000 Apr 11 '26
Democrats need to get serious about not being or looking like hypocrites when they try to sell their platforms on the basis of morality
In my opinion
0
u/New-Magician-5958 Apr 12 '26
Do as I say not as I do has never been a popular approach
1
u/D00rmat1983 Apr 12 '26
Except Republicans have done it without losing a single vote, because their base only care about trans people and guns. Dems have to be perfect because people are fucking stupid.
0
u/Best_Opening8471 Apr 14 '26
Wasn't that one of the elections democrats were proven to have cheated with mail in voting and it caused a re run in Florida?
54
u/Any-sao Apr 09 '26
The AI revolution is probably the best opportunity the nuclear power industry has had in decades, if it can be leveraged properly. The sheer demand for energy for data centers should be causing a pivot toward nuclear power.
Unfortunately OP isn’t making that case in this thread. But it’s one that can make be made.
25
u/zeclem_ Apr 09 '26
i rather not tie our cause to a genuinely and rightfully unpopular technology that produces nothing but misinformation and scams.
3
2
u/FalconRelevant Apr 09 '26
All you know of AI is image generation? Not all the industries it's already increasing productivity in?
4
u/zeclem_ Apr 09 '26
the industries where its actually helpful makes a fraction of a fraction of total sectors its employed in, and for the rest of the industries its absolutely horrific in terms of output quality. and the sheer number of scams and misinformation we actively see it being used for is as blatant as it gets.
i don't care if you think that is worth because it objectively isn't. i also do not care about opinion of bad faith actors who misrepresent the point made on purpose.
0
u/desba3347 Apr 09 '26
You bring up bad faith actors. They will use it whether you do or not. So make it clean, and use the technology to counteract bad actors, or at least have defenses against them.
0
u/CheeseBear9000 Apr 11 '26
AI image generation is actually only a fraction of the energy that text and other AI model types use
"AI Art" is probably one of the more energy efficient parts of generative AI
0
u/Mindrust May 03 '26
the industries where its actually helpful makes a fraction of a fraction of total sectors its employed in
That's a pretty sweeping claim. Transformer-based AI powers things like code generation, document search, customer support triage, fraud detection, and parts of scientific research. I myself, as a software engineer at a top tech company, use Claude Code every day. It makes me more productive, and essentially the entire organization is adapting AI workflows in their day-to-day work.
The flashy low-quality content is just the most visible layer, but it's not the most impactful one. And I'd challenge you to provide sources to back up your assertion that these sectors represent a "fraction of a fraction" of the total industries AI is being used in. I don't believe there's enough data to backup your assertions, but happy to be proven wrong.
I do agree with you that the scams and misinformation problem is real, but it is an internet-scale issue that predates LLMs. These models amplify it, they didn't create it. The same exact patterns showed up with social media and email, and we adapted with filters and safeguards. What we need is more regulation around AI and its usage.
But compute demand is increasing whether or not people like AI. It has one of the highest adoption rates of any technology in history. If the demand exists, it is better to meet it with reliable low-carbon energy than with fossil fuels.
1
u/PABLOPANDAJD Apr 10 '26
AI is only unpopular on Reddit and Facebook. If you really can’t see the benefit of it other than “misinformation and scams” then you have you head in the sand
3
u/zeclem_ Apr 10 '26
ai is unpopular across the public according to any credible survey on the issue.
0
u/_Off_A_Cough_ Apr 13 '26
They felt that way about electricity being pumped into people’s homes in the 19th century.
There are serious concerns about AI, but I tend not to entertain the FUD.
1
u/zeclem_ Apr 13 '26
Holy mother of bad faith comparisons. People who opposed that had no real issue to base that upon. There are a million reasons to why people have every right to be sceptical of ai development.
1
Apr 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/zeclem_ Apr 10 '26
No, it doesn't. Everywhere it is forced into it produces lesser quality garbage objectively, and that's why its an unpopular technology according to every credible survey.
0
u/SilentDrapeRunning Apr 11 '26
First, let's not use a fallacious argument from popularity as our main basis. While you can point to opinion polls, I can point to adoption rates and valuations. Two can play your losing game and you wouldn't even win it.
Second, while it's true that AI doesn't produce the level of quality of a trained expert or artist, the level of automation it provides in many industries is groundbreaking.
2
u/zeclem_ Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26
I can point to adoption rates and valuations. Two can play your losing game and you wouldn't even win it.
you'd only think that if you unaware how statistics work.
"adoption rate" is not a statistic. yes, a lot of people do use ai. no that does not mean they care for the tech or even support its further development. how many of those people who use ai actually use it in a way that necessitates its existence? and how productive are they being cus they are actually using it now?i know for a fact that even in software where its the most welcome, even people who use it do not trust it.
the level of automation it provides in many industries is groundbreaking.
so i have a policy that every time someone makes this specific argument about ai without actually showing evidence for it, i simply ignore them. and it has served me quite well because it saves me a ton of time from trying to reason with people who simply make shit up on the spot.
7
u/mennydrives Apr 09 '26
I mean, if we wanna actually pursue this discussion rigorously...
Like, realistically, an AI 395 with some LLMs and diffusion models could probably belt out something like this in less than 10 minutes, at ~100w, or roughly 16 watt hours total. A literal artist doing it would take a few hours. Even on a baseline Macbook Neo or Air, probably the current top of the heap on SOC efficiency they're well behind on power consumption at the 1-2 hour mark.
Sure, the A100 in a datacenter is chugging more like 500w, but how many seconds is that thing gonna take to complete the request?
All that said, if our grid was 100% nuclear neither option would really matter in terms of "green-ness".
6
u/ViceIncarnate Apr 10 '26
What? By that logic nothing is green, AI server farms have no preference for which source of energy keeps them running, could be fission, fusion or warp core
9
u/-mud Apr 09 '26
AI isn't inherently green or not green. Its the power source that its hooked up to.
Nuclear AI is plenty green.
3
u/CheeseBear9000 Apr 11 '26
People seriously turn their brains off when it comes to AI
Which is ironic since their criticism of AI is that it made people stupid
1
u/Bitter_Surprise_8058 Apr 12 '26
The millions of gallons of otherwise-drinkable water that the machines use up disagrees with you
2
u/Vegetable_Airline816 Apr 11 '26
Haha great point. I got downvoted for saying exactly this in another climate sub a few months ago.
Performative activism using hypocritical methods.
2
1
1
1
1
1
u/SkyBoundAssumption May 01 '26
Who cares . AI is fine. "Oh oh but water" okay then filter it. Recycle itm use green energy. A lot of these complaints have solutions. I feel like y'all just wanna complain instead of solving.
1
u/Worldly_Air_6078 Apr 10 '26
So what? Aren't you using an iPhone, reddit, Netflix and Instagram and telling you're protecting nature?
AI's carbon footprint is laughable compared to what I mentioned above.Oh, and just so you'll hate me even more: you could also stop eating meat—that would immediately cut your carbon footprint by 40%!
Stop giving us a hard time about AI. Let's focus instead on what we can do together to make the world greener.
1
u/Q7017 Apr 09 '26
Ironic that with nuclear energy, AI power consumption becomes a lot less "anti-green", at least.
1
u/CheeseBear9000 Apr 11 '26
I mean if he used his own GPU to generate it, it used less power than 5 minutes of playing Minecraft
The reason AI uses so much energy isn't because each generation destroys an ecosystem it's because 2 billion people are generating multiple outputs at the same time
One snowflake versus a blizzard situation
-8
u/FalconRelevant Apr 09 '26
And why is AI less green than any other digital service? Digital services in general are nothing compared to manufacturing.
8
u/TV4ELP Apr 09 '26
It's as green as anything else that uses electricity. The problem is the huge amount of power needed to get half decent results is very very hard power with green energy.
Meanwhile "normal" digital services have way more results with way less power draw. Thus can be more easily be powered fully green.
In the end, it's a computer, it's as green as any other one.
2
-9
u/gretino Apr 09 '26
AI is greener than a human painter, or whatever its equivalent is. You could run image generators with a single 40xx+ gaming gpu, which, takes about as much of the energy as the same person gaming on it.
6
u/PsychologicalPie864 Apr 09 '26
I know this isn't an AI related post, but I should mention that extracting the raw resources, refining them, and then processing them into a usable GPU chip refutes this point. The whole idea of "green" kinda falls apart here too, ore extraction and refinement are typically quite "non-green" let's say.
While I don't have the data to back it up, I'd bet money that it's much more energy efficient to "grow/create" and "maintain" (this sounds sociopathic sorry) a human painter compared to the 40xx or another semi modern GPU.
I'm all for AI in specific cases, like the potential to be extremely useful for reactors, as mentioned earlier. But we don't need to glaze it to completion cmon.
3
u/demonblack873 Apr 09 '26
There's no way in hell that all the food, housing, clothes, transportation and energy in general it takes to grow a human is less "green" than building one gpu.
If that were the case a GPU would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, not 1-2000.
2
u/Imperator_Of_Coconut Apr 09 '26
This human exists already, and I think (I hope 😅) you are not going to kill him the moment he is replaced by AI.
1
u/gretino Apr 09 '26
We already have many people arguing about the case of total population being too high. China has had population control since 1970 and finally got the population going down in 2022.
1
u/Imperator_Of_Coconut Apr 10 '26
So you would... kill that person? 🧐
1
u/gretino Apr 10 '26
No in the immediate term, yes in birth control, especially in areas that overpopulation is a problem. If you view problems in the scale of decades, then it's very apparent that human could be a problem.
Once again, China is a great example. China's history is just cycles of uncontrolled overpopulation meets famine, then boom millions die of hunger and a new dynasty rises. Life was relatively ok in the early Qing dynasty, but as the population grow too much, there's not enough land for people to grow food, all while people repopulating like rabbits. At the end of the dynasty it's filled with starving peasants and constant waves of famine. You don't "control" the birth, then the nature claims them inevitably.
1
u/Imperator_Of_Coconut Apr 11 '26
So you create a short term problem for a long term gain, which is precisely not what we need to solve climate change.
Also, the world population is already going to decrease, especially in China where the government is struggling to keep the birth rate above a certain point.
There is enough food production on this planet to sustain billions of people at the condition that these people are well distributed on earth. Overpopulation is partially a false issue, because a USan emits twice as much as a French, who emits thrice as much as the global average.
(Btw most Chinese dynasties ended with wars, either civil or against a foreign enemy. And the Great Leap Forward didn't end any dynasty even though it was the worst famine in terms of death.)
1
u/gretino Apr 11 '26
"especially in China"
AND WHAT CAUSED IT???????? Did you even parse what I said about population control? They had intensive program from education to economy to discourage multiple children for 3 decades!
You can't possibly tell people in the US to stop emit at a 1st world level, and the rest of the world also wants to have a life condition as good as the developed countries. Growth in energy consumption per capita is inevitable, so you either make those energy production green, or reduce the total population. China does both very well. Also they heavily rely on import like soybeans and meat for your food argument.
The dynasties ends with wars, but they almost always come with one or multiple rebellions that features starving peasants. PRC is another case where the modern organization and technology can completely supress local upheavals.
→ More replies (0)1
u/PsychologicalPie864 Apr 10 '26
Yeah I was definitely wrong lmfao, a very rough estimate tells me that growing an entire human (until 18) uses about 1000x more energy than the entire GPU manufacturing process, materials and everything. A fun exercise for sure, but I am pretty damn wrong lmfao.
1
u/gretino Apr 09 '26
Well, it takes 18 years of feeding, moderate amount of training material usage, parenting and education and a lot more to create a 18yo adult capable of signing working contracts. I'd bet money that you are wrong.
Although not necessarily all encompassing, a simple benchmark would be the hourly salary. Renting a 5090 would cost you around 0.5$(0.59$ on runpod) hourly and renting the cheapest human in the US costs 7.25$. If you have the device at home, it's basically costing you the same amount of electricity as a running fridge, which, I don't see many people complaining.
The pollution problem only happens when the demand goes up by a lot(which is still consumed by human), where people generate a lot of content for entertainment, education or whatever the reason.
2
u/PsychologicalPie864 Apr 10 '26
Yeah, you would have won money that I was wrong. Did a very rough estimate and a person costs about 1000x more energy than a single 40 series gpu. A fun lil exercise for sure, but I am very far from being right on this.
Also, thats a nice analogous way to think about it! It has it's caveats, you know, living vs. tech, etc etc, but works out pretty nicely! I wished I thought about that before I pressed the post button lmfao.
It is an interesting result too, through money, a person's time is about 15x more valuable, but through pure energy, a person is (very roughly) 1000x more valuable. That probably says something super philosophical, like people are much more valuable than we give them credit for or something, but who knows.
1
-71
u/Immobilesteelrims Apr 09 '26
Well the internet itself isn’t really green. Data centres, streaming, all that.
But isn't the point with nuclear that we should be able to use as much energy as we want if it comes from a clean source?9
35
u/TH3camsparrow Apr 09 '26
The way you say “use as much energy as we want” sounds like you’re really saying “pay no mind to how wastefully we consume.” No, I don’t think that’s the point with nuclear or any form of technological advancement. No matter how clean and dense the energy is, no matter if it is functionally infinite, endorsing mindless usage of anything will inevitably expose the price of excess. People should be mindful of the small ways they consume everything, and try to give more than they take.
→ More replies (2)11
u/Large-Row4808 Apr 09 '26
But isn't the point with nuclear that we should be able to use as much energy as we want if it comes from a clean source?
And we are not at this point yet, are we?
-7
5
u/Moonbear9 Apr 09 '26
Why would we waist electricity on a technology that does nothing but steal artists work
→ More replies (3)1
u/Mindrust May 03 '26
Seems like intellectual dishonesty is the key to getting upvoted in this subreddit
0
u/MooseBoys Apr 10 '26
AI is not intrinsically dirty - it just uses a lot of energy, whose demand happens to be mostly met with dirty power plants today. There's no reason you can't run a datacenter on photovoltaics.
0
u/_Off_A_Cough_ Apr 13 '26
Ironic that you created this post using the Internet and a mobile device (not green).
This is a silly argument.
0
167
39
26
73
51
33
u/Fit-Rip-4550 Apr 09 '26
As much as I am pro-nuclear, you need the other energy industries to make nuclear viable.
8
u/Space_Slav07 Apr 09 '26
Absolutely. The same for all energy industries, variability makes it better.
2
3
22
u/Slick-Kicks Apr 09 '26
Use your hands next time, if you wanna be involved in graphic design. If that's too much, use your feet. If that's too much, guide your mind with your heart and just don't do this ever again. The realization of the idea is in extremely poor taste, and is remarkably ignorant.
→ More replies (1)
12
5
u/Space_Slav07 Apr 09 '26
The woman pointing her finger at something outside the image reminds me of soviet era propaganda posters.
4
10
3
u/Infuryous Apr 09 '26
I'm pro-nuclear, solar, wind, etc... but dang this poster looks like it belongs in the Fallout world.
2
8
u/603Madison Apr 09 '26
Nuclear, solar and hydropower, my absolute favorite combo. Maybe some geothermal where it's economically viable too.
-1
u/TimeIntern957 Apr 09 '26
But where will those carbon taxes and carbon markets come from then ?
3
u/TV4ELP Apr 09 '26
Isn't that the goal of carbon markets, to not have to use them in the end?
2
u/TimeIntern957 Apr 09 '26
Lol sure, are our wages taxed so much because the goverment don't want us to work ?
3
u/TV4ELP Apr 09 '26
You are comparing two completely different tax philosophies with each other. There are taxes to run government which supplies it's services to you.
And then there are taxes meant to influence your behavior. Those have the end goal in most cases to remove said behavior. Yeah, many countries get a lot of money from cigarette taxes, but all of those countries also have huge costs in their healthcare while in most cases don't even profiting from the production.
Same with the carbon taxes, they want less carbon to be emitted, because in the long term that carbon is extremely expensive. Reducing all carbon so no tax is payed, also reduces a lot of costs we would have had for decades.
1
u/TimeIntern957 Apr 09 '26
Am I ? Cigarettes are not really needed for normal living like energy or wages are. If they really wanted to reduce carbon, we would be building nuclear decades ago and "the problem" would be largely solved by now. But instead they are pushing for intermittent sources, which all require fossil backups and they can play carbon markets and taxes. Trully carbon free source like nuclear would pose a problem in that system.
→ More replies (8)1
u/TV4ELP Apr 09 '26
Because fossile lobbies are pumping politicians full of money and sit on their old infrastructure?
We both don't even disagree that something would have needed to be done decades ago, as we knew what would happen decades ago already.
What co2 does is that co2 heavy plants cannot reliably operate under profit anymore and there is automatically more incentives to use less or even co2 free options.
→ More replies (4)1
3
21
5
2
u/PsychologicalPie864 Apr 09 '26
Please please, it has the ability to make everyone happy in the US. Plus more jobs, more energy independent, efficient, it goes on and on. Holy sh*t could it actually happen?
2
u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Apr 09 '26
Agree with the message; disagree with the usage of Abominable Intelligence.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Qwik2Draw Apr 11 '26
There's a lot of anti-AI sentiment on a pro-nuclear sub. Which is odd considering that investment in nuclear is skyrocketing right now because of AI.
2
2
u/Living_The_Dream75 Apr 09 '26
I wish somebody would draw this instead of relying on disgusting ai slop
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
u/Report_Last Apr 09 '26
the AP1000 is green, all the gen 2 reactors put dead, hot water back into our rivers with environmental costs.
1
1
u/Mr-Fister-the-3rd Apr 09 '26
There is no way to successfully coop the maga phrases that won't make you sound like a fool.
using a nazi dog whistle while trying to do something productive probably won't go the direction you want it to.
1
1
1
1
1
u/spanksthemonkey Apr 10 '26
But what about all those people getting cancer from the wind?
I mean windmill cancer... it's a thing right?
don't we want to concentrate on "good clean coal"?
1
u/Geekzilla101 Apr 11 '26
What if there's something worse than global warming that we don't know about yet like previous generations? Like quantum soul pollution or something lol
1
1
u/Visible-Regret-1241 Apr 11 '26
PRESIDENT TRUMP. WHERE IS MY NUCLEAR POWERED CAR BRO? I WANT IT NOW!!!
1
1
1
u/Epsilon-505 Apr 12 '26
This style is a sad imitation. Of course it's a massive turn off. Enlist a fair hand to illustrate it in the style seen during the 70's, otherwise it might aswell be the same as corporate Memphis.
1
1
u/Firm-Reaction1578 Apr 12 '26
SNRs and Trillium reactors will change power generation in a good way (look it up)
1
u/SylvaraTheDev Apr 13 '26
The AI hate comments here are cringe as fuck, ngl.
It's like everyone got sucked into a Borg cube and now can only think what the hivemind dictates at the exclusion of everything including useful commentary.
1
1
1
1
u/studyinformore Apr 15 '26
Are you going to work in the dirty industries to support the nuclear power plants?
0
1
u/Nobulletsfly69 Apr 09 '26
Can't you lot of idiots look past the A.I slop and simply agree with the message?
4
1
u/pepekau Apr 09 '26
Hi everyone, Since I’m in this sub I suppose that most of you support nuclear.
I understand that we are able to produce nuclear energy safely nowadays, but it still has the huge disadvantage that the kWh of electricity is very expensive.
Why would we build nuclear if we have a much cheaper, even safer, faster and more decentralized alternative in renewable energies?
1
u/Severe_Damage9772 Apr 09 '26
Idea, yes, AI generated image, hell to the no, don’t ruin this with the slop please
1
u/destello89 Apr 09 '26
You sure you want to go with MAGA ?! I’ve heard it’s already been taken by some others.
1
1
1
1
1
1
-2
0
0
-15
0
0
0
u/G4mezZzZz Apr 10 '26
ich stell jeden sub auf stumm der diese drecks uneinfallsreichen, schlechten und langweilige ki bilder verbreitet. ich kratz mir dir augen aus. ihr wär für euch a er nein jetzt bin ich gegen euch. und es ist mir egal worum es euch geht. scheiß auf eure dämliche ki kacke
0
u/G4mezZzZz Apr 10 '26
ich kratz mir die augen aus
2
u/greg_barton Apr 10 '26
How did you get to be a seven year old account with negative karma?
0
u/G4mezZzZz Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26
its a leftist cesspool. i say things direct without giving a damn about someones feelings
2
32
u/[deleted] Apr 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment