It's not often A.I., Nuclear and World Peace are used in the same sentence, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss the potential path we may be on toward a better world.
Hi there, Rich, we met years ago at an entrepreneurship function at New College. I'm glad to see your mind on the cost-side of AI while many selectively tout the benefits. I agree that nuclear will be necessary to support growth in AI while staying on track with emissions goals. I also agree that a program like "Megatons to Megawatts" is perfect in theory, but to reinstate it would be difficult if not impossible with today's international relations. A more achievable goal may be to invest in and better utilize domestic nuclear infrastructure to supply the power for AI, but there's challenges to that too.
In terms of demand, I'd like to point out that, due to gains in processor and cooling efficiency, exponential growth in computing capacity may only drive linear growth in demand for power. Mega-tech companies market the notion that efficiency gains and investments in renewable utilities can keep their emissions stable or even in a downtrend through this process. To pull this off, they need to be able to invest incrementally in power as the demand increases materialize. Since these quantities are hard to predict, something modular like solar is less financially risky than committing to a PPA with a nuclear plant.
Good points. I agree 1993 was a unique opportunity since there was a transfer of power with Soviet Union being dissolved in 91. However, Russia loved the deal because it was profitable and also marked one of the more friendly periods. I sense this is achievable with the right leadership but I do agree it's unlikely anytime soon unless there is a ton of money to be made and Russia sees AI as strategic.
That makes sense, and thank you for bringing this interesting history to my attention. After doing some reading on the MtM program I see how it could be brought back in some form. It seems like the main interest of the US in '93 was disarmament, and over time it shifted towards power generation. By 2008 a quarter-billion dollars of tax revenue was approved to fund investments in nuclear reactors in Florida. At the same time Obama was a proponent of green energy and talking about a "nuclear renaissance."
It seems like the nature of the uranium deal also shifted from diplomatic to transactional over the same time frame. Russia actually added a lot of value to their weapons-grade uranium by "down-blending" it before shipping it to the US. This process reduces the "enrichment" level (concentration of the fissile U-235 isotope) of the uranium material down to a level suitable for power generation.
But in the early days ('93-'99) the deal created oversupply and plunging spot price in the uranium market causing financial trouble for investors and miners. Ultimately some government funds were used to mop up the excess supply and restore the market. At this point the deal had evolved to where the US would send Russia high-enriched uranium material (HEU) in exchange for the low-enriched material (LEU).
To your point about profitability, this may be a working example of international trade, where the US benefits by having their LEU prepared without bearing the risk and cap-ex, while Russia benefits by flexing their comparative advantage in a profitable industry. I could see some form of this deal resurrecting for purely-economic reasons even with today's relations, but, since the US would be sending Russia HEU, it wouldn't advance disarmament.
Hi there, Rich, we met years ago at an entrepreneurship function at New College. I'm glad to see your mind on the cost-side of AI while many selectively tout the benefits. I agree that nuclear will be necessary to support growth in AI while staying on track with emissions goals. I also agree that a program like "Megatons to Megawatts" is perfect in theory, but to reinstate it would be difficult if not impossible with today's international relations. A more achievable goal may be to invest in and better utilize domestic nuclear infrastructure to supply the power for AI, but there's challenges to that too.
In terms of demand, I'd like to point out that, due to gains in processor and cooling efficiency, exponential growth in computing capacity may only drive linear growth in demand for power. Mega-tech companies market the notion that efficiency gains and investments in renewable utilities can keep their emissions stable or even in a downtrend through this process. To pull this off, they need to be able to invest incrementally in power as the demand increases materialize. Since these quantities are hard to predict, something modular like solar is less financially risky than committing to a PPA with a nuclear plant.
Good points. I agree 1993 was a unique opportunity since there was a transfer of power with Soviet Union being dissolved in 91. However, Russia loved the deal because it was profitable and also marked one of the more friendly periods. I sense this is achievable with the right leadership but I do agree it's unlikely anytime soon unless there is a ton of money to be made and Russia sees AI as strategic.
That makes sense, and thank you for bringing this interesting history to my attention. After doing some reading on the MtM program I see how it could be brought back in some form. It seems like the main interest of the US in '93 was disarmament, and over time it shifted towards power generation. By 2008 a quarter-billion dollars of tax revenue was approved to fund investments in nuclear reactors in Florida. At the same time Obama was a proponent of green energy and talking about a "nuclear renaissance."
It seems like the nature of the uranium deal also shifted from diplomatic to transactional over the same time frame. Russia actually added a lot of value to their weapons-grade uranium by "down-blending" it before shipping it to the US. This process reduces the "enrichment" level (concentration of the fissile U-235 isotope) of the uranium material down to a level suitable for power generation.
But in the early days ('93-'99) the deal created oversupply and plunging spot price in the uranium market causing financial trouble for investors and miners. Ultimately some government funds were used to mop up the excess supply and restore the market. At this point the deal had evolved to where the US would send Russia high-enriched uranium material (HEU) in exchange for the low-enriched material (LEU).
To your point about profitability, this may be a working example of international trade, where the US benefits by having their LEU prepared without bearing the risk and cap-ex, while Russia benefits by flexing their comparative advantage in a profitable industry. I could see some form of this deal resurrecting for purely-economic reasons even with today's relations, but, since the US would be sending Russia HEU, it wouldn't advance disarmament.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/military-warheads-as-a-source-of-nuclear-fuel
https://minesmagazine.com/6237/
https://russianforces.org/blog/2009/11/megatons_to_megawatts_program.shtml