this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
81 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

84662 readers
3761 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1122224/nuclear-power-plants-far-more-popular-than-ai-data-centers-for-local-areas

Seven in 10 Americans oppose constructing data centers for artificial intelligence in their local area, including nearly half, 48%, who are strongly opposed. Barely a quarter favor these projects, with 7% strongly in favor.

These results, from a March 2-18 Gallup survey, represent the first time Gallup has asked about data center construction, a topic that has met fierce opposition from local residents in many parts of the country. These data centers house computing equipment that helps power AI technology used by businesses, universities and other institutions. The centers cover large areas of land, require extensive amounts of electricity to operate and need substantial water to cool the equipment, raising concerns about their impact on the environment and local electric bills.

The data center question parallels the wording Gallup uses to ask about local nuclear power plant construction. In the same March survey, 53% of Americans say they oppose building a nuclear energy plant in their area, far less than the 71% opposed to data center construction. Since Gallup first asked the nuclear power plant question in 2001, the high point in opposition has been 63%.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

It's too late for Nuclear the drawbacks just don't outweigh the benefits anymore, we should have gone nuclear 50 years ago, now it makes sense to go straight to renewables.

I'm not against nuclear but it just doesn't make sense to build new nuclear China doesn't have any of the excuses pro-nuclear blame (NIMBYs/OSHA/etc) yet they aren't investing in nuclear.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Well we need both. We can't power the world 100% off renewables because we don't inave a global power distribution network.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Why not?

We have batteries, geothermal, hydro & wind.

There are already countries that are 100% renewable, without a global grid.

Country Renewable % Rest of mix
Bhutan ~100% Negligible fossil backup; nearly all hydro — RatedPower
Albania ~100% Small fossil gas imports during drought years; solar growing to 9% of capacity — RatedPower
Paraguay ~100% Negligible; exports large surplus hydro to Brazil & Argentina — RatedPower
Iceland ~99% ~1% oil/gas peaking; geothermal + hydro dominant — Our World in Data
Costa Rica ~99% ~1% diesel backup generation — Our World in Data
Nepal ~99% ~1% fossil fuel; imports some coal-based power from India during dry season — RatedPower
Norway ~98% ~1% fossil gas, ~1% other; minor imports during low-hydro periods — Our World in Data
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 8 hours ago

Yeah that's my point. It's all very well Norway being able to produce vast amounts of electricity but how do you transfer that to Japan or Australia? You can't because there isn't a global power distribution network you can't take electricity from any arbitrary point on the planet and deliver it to any other arbitrary point on the planet and until we develop such an interconnected system we're going to have to need independent power generation systems some of which won't be renewable.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The technology is sound and the drawbacks are massively overblown by the fossil fuel lobby. But Old style monolithic nuclear doesn't make any economic sense in the modern world. The regulatory system in most western countries plus mechanical complexity doesn't allow for it to be built in any reasonable timeframe.

SMR's might make a decent dent in decentralized grid situations tbh. Otherwise it's going to be everyone holding out for fusion to magically get its ass into gear.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Otherwise it’s going to be everyone holding out for fusion to magically get its ass into gear.

Or y'know using renewable, China built/claims to have built 430 GW of renewables in 2025, solar can be deployed nearly anywhere and unlike SMR doesn't produce nuclear waste that you somehow have to safely despose of from your remote off grid location