Desogen: Martin-Logan Buy

посетить веб-сайт <a href=https://gcup.ru/>GameDev Unreal Engine</a>

A nuclear fusion power plant prototype is already being built outside Boston. How long until unlimited clean energy is real?
<a href=https://www.bolshoyvopros.ru/questions/3388894-kompanija-lajf-iz-gud-zhk-bestvej-i-schet-vista-ot-hermes-eto-lohotrony.html>гей порно молодые</a>
In an unassuming industrial park 30 miles outside Boston, engineers are building a futuristic machine to replicate the energy of the stars. If all goes to plan, it could be the key to producing virtually unlimited, clean electricity in the United States in about a decade.

The donut-shaped machine Commonwealth Fusion Systems is assembling to generate this energy is simultaneously the hottest and coldest place in the entire solar system, according to the scientists who are building it.

It is inside that extreme environment in the so-called tokamak that they smash atoms together in 100-million-degree plasma. The nuclear fusion reaction is surrounded by a magnetic field more than 400,000 times more powerful than the Earth’s and chilled with cryogenic gases close to absolute zero.

The fusion reaction — forcing two atoms to merge — is what creates the energy of the sun. It is the exact opposite of what the world knows now as “nuclear power” — a fission reaction that splits atoms.

Nuclear fusion has far greater energy potential, with none of the safety concerns around radioactive waste.

SPARC is the tokamak Commonwealth says could forever change how the world gets its energy, generating 10 million times more than coal or natural gas while producing no planet-warming pollution. Fuel for fusion is abundant, derived from deuterium, found in seawater, and tritium extracted from lithium. And unlike nuclear fission, there is no atomic waste involved.

The biggest hurdle is building a machine powerful and precise enough to harness the molten, hard-to-tame plasma, while also overcoming the net-energy issue – getting more energy out than you put into it.
“Basically, what everybody expects is when we build the next machine, we expect it to be a net-energy machine,” said Andrew Holland, CEO of the Fusion Industry Association, a trade group representing fusion companies around the globe. “The question is, how fast can you build that machine?”

Commonwealth’s timeline is audacious: With over $2 billion raised in private capital, its goal is to build the world’s first fusion-fueled power plant by the early 2030s in Virginia.

“It’s like a race with the planet,” said Brandon Sorbom, Commonwealth’s chief science officer. Commonwealth is racing to find a solution for global warming, Sorbom said, but it’s also trying to keep up with new power-hungry technologies like artificial intelligence. “This factory here is a 24/7 factory,” he said. “We’re acutely aware of it every minute of every hour of every day.”

веб-сайт <a href=https://gcup.ru/>GameDev Unreal Engine</a>

сюда <a href=https://gcup.ru/>Программирование игр</a>

Study reveals how much energy AI uses to answer your questions
<a href=https://tripscan.biz>tripskan</a>
Whether it’s answering work emails or drafting wedding vows, generative artificial intelligence tools have become a trusty copilot in many people’s lives. But a growing body of research shows that for every problem AI solves, hidden environmental costs are racking up.

Each word in an AI prompt is broken down into clusters of numbers called “token IDs” and sent to massive data centers — some larger than football fields — powered by coal or natural gas plants. There, stacks of large computers generate responses through dozens of rapid calculations.

The whole process can take up to 10 times more energy to complete than a regular Google search, according to a frequently cited estimation by the Electric Power Research Institute.
tripscan.biz
tripscan войти
So, for each prompt you give AI, what’s the damage? To find out, researchers in Germany tested 14 large language model (LLM) AI systems by asking them both free-response and multiple-choice questions. Complex questions produced up to six times more carbon dioxide emissions than questions with concise answers.

In addition, “smarter” LLMs with more reasoning abilities produced up to 50 times more carbon emissions than simpler systems to answer the same question, the study reported.

“This shows us the tradeoff between energy consumption and the accuracy of model performance,” said Maximilian Dauner, a doctoral student at Hochschule Munchen University of Applied Sciences and first author of the Frontiers in Communication study published Wednesday.

Typically, these smarter, more energy intensive LLMs have tens of billions more parameters — the biases used for processing token IDs — than smaller, more concise models.

“You can think of it like a neural network in the brain. The more neuron connections, the more thinking you can do to answer a question,” Dauner said.
What you can do to reduce your carbon footprint
Complex questions require more energy in part because of the lengthy explanations many AI models are trained to provide, Dauner said. If you ask an AI chatbot to solve an algebra question for you, it may take you through the steps it took to find the answer, he said.

UK project trials carbon capture at sea to help tackle climate change
<a href=https://tripscan.biz>tripscan</a>
The world is betting heavily on carbon capture — a term that refers to various techniques to stop carbon pollution from being released during industrial processes, or removing existing carbon from the atmosphere, to then lock it up permanently.

The practice is not free of controversy, with some arguing that carbon capture is expensive, unproven and can serve as a distraction from actually reducing carbon emissions. But it is a fast-growing reality: there are at least 628 carbon capture and storage projects in the pipeline around the world, with a 60% year-on-year increase, according to the latest report from the Global CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) Institute. The market size was just over $3.5 billion in 2024, but is projected to grow to $14.5 billion by 2032, according to Fortune Business Insights.
tripscan.biz
tripskan
Perhaps the most ambitious — and the most expensive — type of carbon capture involves removing carbon dioxide (CO2) directly from the air, although there are just a few such facilities currently in operation worldwide. Some scientists believe that a better option would be to capture carbon from seawater rather than air, because the ocean is the planet’s largest carbon sink, absorbing 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions.

In the UK, where the government in 2023 announced up to ?20 billion ($26.7 billion) in funding to support carbon capture, one such project has taken shape near the English Channel. Called SeaCURE, it aims to find out if sea carbon capture actually works, and if it can be competitive with its air counterpart.

“The reason why sea water holds so much carbon is that when you put CO2 into the water, 99% of it becomes other forms of dissolved carbon that don’t exchange with the atmosphere,” says Paul Halloran, a professor of Ocean and Climate Science at the University of Exeter, who leads the SeaCURE team.

“But it also means it’s very straightforward to take that carbon out of the water.”

Pilot plant
SeaCURE started building a pilot plant about a year ago, at the Weymouth Sea Life Centre on the southern coast of England. Operational for the past few months, it is designed to process 3,000 liters of seawater per minute and remove an estimated 100 tons of CO2 per year.

“We wanted to test the technology in the real environment with real sea water, to identify what problems you hit,” says Halloran, adding that working at a large public aquarium helps because it already has infrastructure to extract seawater and then discharge it back into the ocean.

The carbon that is naturally dissolved in the seawater can be easily converted to CO2 by slightly increasing the acidity of the water. To make it come out, the water is trickled over a large surface area with air blowing over it. “In that process, we can constrict over 90% of the carbon out of that water,” Halloran says.