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.

  • pizzazz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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

    • Goku@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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/

        • Goku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • pizzazz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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”

            • Goku@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.