World News

32047 readers

511 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

134

Microsoft Looks to Nuclear to Fuel AI Plans (tech.co)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Data centers, the things that physically store and share applications and data, require an enormous amount of energy to run. These giant storage units, responsible for 1-1.5% of global electricity consumption, have traditionally relied on renewable sources like solar and wind but it seems as though renewable energy just won’t be able to keep up with the demand required moving forward.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I could be wrong but I thought rate of decay was a logarithmic function, not exponential.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Rate of decay for a specific isotope is constant, so its abundance decays exponentially. Of course a species can transmute in a new radionuclide so the process in total will not be exactly exponential, but pretty close. Seen on a log scale it's awfully close to a straight line

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

This link shows that the number of nuclides decreases at a slower rate as time goes on. Opposite of an exponential function.

As time progresses the rate at which the nuclear waste decays into innert matter is slower and slower. This is not at all an exponential rate.

So I don't think it's correct to say "loses its harm exponentially."

It "loses its harm" more slowly as time goes on

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/31-5-half-life-and-activity/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sorry what? That link literally explains the exponential decay of radioisotopes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Exponential decay is not the same as "exponentially losing its harm"

It very slowly "loses its harm" and as time progresses, it gets even slower.

The inverse of an exponential function is still an exponential function.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The harm of ionizing radiation is given by the activity of the source. Which decays exponentially. You should not go on the internet lecturing people you don't know about things you don't understand.

Also, you moved the goalpost: first you claimed waste "doesn't decay exponentially" and then without acknowledging it, you now claim that "exponential decay is not the same as losing harm exponentially"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I concede that it is exponential and not logarithmic, but the original statement of yours "loses its harm exponentially" is what got us going down this tangent. I think that statement is misleading, because the truth is that the waste loses its harm exponentially slower as time goes on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think you understand the concept of exponential, or radioactivity for that matter tbh. The statement is completely truthful.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Lol OK buddy, I went to school for this and worked in a power plant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Sure LMAO