XPost: comp.os.linux.misc, alt.politics, alt.economy   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc   
   From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 06/11/2024 00:26, rbowman wrote:   
   > On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 05/11/2024 20:31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:   
   >>> On the other hand, I recently re-worked a summary report program to   
   >>> build the entire table in memory and spew it out after all input files   
   >>> had been read, because I realized that these days, given the finite   
   >>> volume of data I'm working with, I effectively _do_  have unlimited   
   >>> memory.   
   >>   
   >> I have a friend who does maths research, involving operations on   
   >> gigantic matrices.   
   >> His original code, some of which is assembler to access some obscure   
   >> INTEL instructions to do with vector maths, was designed to use 128GB.   
   >> On someone else's extremely expensive computer in a far away land.   
   >> That is no longer an option, and he spent last week rewriting it to suit   
   >> the biggest motherboard he can easily obtain.   
   >>   
   >> Typically a run takes several months. The power usage on the computer is   
   >> about 500W.   
   >>   
   >> So people can still find ways to push the limits of computers.   
   >   
   > AI is great for that. You know you're in trouble when companies are trying   
   > to buy nuclear plants to keep the lights in in the computing centers.   
   >   
   Frankly I regard that as pure serendipity.   
   The world needs nuclear power in unheard of quantities, and if AI is the   
   trigger to start that avalanche, I dont care if in the end its utterly   
   pointless.   
      
   The nuclear power stations will still be there. and usable   
      
      
   > It doesn't get as much mention yet but all that energy eventually becomes   
   > heat. Is the answer something like the Seabrook nuke where you can use the   
   > Atlantic to keep the processors cool? When they were building Seabrook one   
   > of the spins was that the lobsters would love their cozy new homes.   
   >   
      
   Yes. There is a distinct change in species near the outfalls of coastal   
   reactors - but its the same for any thermal power plant - aside from CCGT..   
      
   60% of  the energy ends up as low grade heat. (Its more like 30% on a   
   CCGT but no one is talking about efficient uses of Uranium via a tow   
   stage gas/steam turbine setup yet). Its dirt cheap and plentiful. So   
   waste heat it will be.   
      
   But there are more ways of using low grade heat than spaffing it up a   
   cooling tower. SMRs built near cities, could heat them. Or acres of   
   polytunnels growing plants unable to survive in the local climate.   
      
   De-salination plants for fresh water.   
      
   Thermodynamics tells us that in a thermal plant, 100% effeciency is not   
   available, and its a balance between efficiency and cost. No one is   
   comfortable mixing extremely hot high pressure steam and nuclear   
   reactors, so they run at safer temperatures and pressures.   
      
      
      
   --   
   The higher up the mountainside   
   The greener grows the grass.   
   The higher up the monkey climbs   
   The more he shows his arse.   
      
   Traditional   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)