As many here might be aware, the new RTX series dropped! With this, a lot more performances… and a lot more power consumption
At this rate you'll soon need a dedicated grid to power this shit. This is pissing me off, as we're not living in times of energetic abundance. Prices of fuel skyrocket due to the situation in Eastern Europe, and we need more than ever to find alternative energy sources that don't mess our planet further up. So the last thing we need is some piece of computer hardware that chugs near as much as a fucking vacuum cleaner

There's a petition treating of that with more details, if you agree this is a problem, it would be awesome if you could sign it and share it everywhere you can
https://chng.it/hGkcvHpdY8

Imho the whole design is misguided.

Design in general - be it processors, graphic cards, ...

They're too desperate to gain performance points for marketing instead of focusing on the more important aspects of stability, resource usage and availability.

Look at e.g. the whole security debacle in microprocessors - speculative attacks etc.

It should be a cautious tale to not prioritize performance over security, yet they do it every time.

Security meant in a broader sense, not only attack patterns, but closed firmware etc...

This applies to really everything.

But guess that would be too clever. Instead let's just wreak havoc instead of preventing it and deal with the crisis.

we don't need to find alternative energy sources, we just need to use the one we have, since it's the cleanest, safest, and most reliable.
nuclear fission.

it would last the whole planet without issues for at least 10times more thatn it's going to take to get to commercially viable nuclear fusion.

except the plan from overlords dictates energy starvation as a means of population control and thus we keep decommissioning clean, efficient, safe and abundance-creating nuclear power plants and keep building dinky unreliable wind plants and dinky unreliable and environmentally toxic solar plants.

@Midnight-shcode ... If it wouldn't be the problem of storing radioactive material, preventing misusage, preventing corruption and thus "insufficient maintenance due to lack of funds" (nicest way I could frame that), human nature... Then maybe.

But honestly, nuclear fission isn't a solution.

Most nuclear reactors are falling apart, long term storage is hard as radioactive waste still is radioactive for hundreds of years and humanity is one of the worst results of evolution, both in terms of intellect and malevolence.

Given the war between Ukraine and Russia and the handling of both reactor plant sites - Tschernobyl and Zaporizhzhia - one can absolutely say that nuclear fission doesn't belong in human hands.

Other examples would be the catastrophic maintenance of most reactors worldwide.

Look at the statistics for scram and other emergency procedures worldwide...

Most of the reactors should be shutdown and replaced immediately, as they're literally on the brink of falling apart and only working partially.

Decommission however is too costly… so they're still running despite being an obvious security risk.

@IntrusionCM
"insufficient maintenance due to lack of funds.

yeah, part of what i said. they're being neglected in lieu of much worse alternatives just so the lies about them being dangerous can become self-fulfilling prophecies justifying the overlord plan that i mentioned.

the waste is minimal. long-lasting, but minimal, and easily stored safely when you don't half-ass it, and by the time the amount becomes a problem... hell, i don't know, but anything is certainly better than the currently planned thing.

@Midnight-shcode it's not.

Which is exactly why it is such a problem.

Do solar panels produce toxic waste?

Yes.

Is it impossible to recycle?

No.

The EU founded a lot of promising research.

This goes for for all regenerative energies.

Solar panels have a life time of up to 30 years. It's more than likely we have found a better permanent solution, better materials and thus more efficient solar panels / wind towers / etc by then.

What we don't have is a solution for storing radioactive material.

Because it isn't recycable.

https://euronuclear.org/nuclear-bas...

300 years only for short lived radioactive material.

300 years where nothing must go wrong - from transport, to storing, to making sure the storage and containment stays safe.

For short lived material. Nope it's not safe.

Coal plants - especially the old ones - produce a lot of ash. The ash is loaded with toxics.

Coal plants and fossil plants are mostly from 1950 plus - most of the plants are old, cannot be rebuild (as in reusing the building), cannot be upgraded easily, cannot be replaced.

So coal and nuclear energy are not a solution.

Regenerative energies are a compromise, without a doubt. But the compromise pays off long term with less consequences and less chance of mayhem.

It’s not hard to have nothing go wrong if you bury the waste about 300km below everything. We have the technology and the studies to do that, the only thing we need now is good communication and it can definitely happen, it’s also despite what every wannabe ecologist says sustainable.

Radioactive waste isn’t a green toxic barrel and people need to look more into it. The media has been feeding that image of the waste but really it’s a non issue. Besides that radioactive waste can be reused with fusion reactors when those become commercially viable. Granted they may never become so but by then we’ll have bigger problems.

300m*