Skip to main content

Solar Was the Leading Source of Electricity In the EU Last Month

2 months ago
In June 2025, solar power became the leading source of electricity in the EU for the first time, surpassing nuclear and wind, while coal hit a record low. CBC reports: Solar generated 22.1 percent of the EU's electricity last month, up from 18.9 percent a year earlier, as record sunshine and continued solar installations pushed output to 45.4 terawatt hours. Nuclear followed closely at 21.8 percent and wind contributed 15.8 percent of the mix. At least 13 EU countries, including Germany, Spain and the Netherlands, recorded highest-ever monthly solar generation, [data from energy think tank Ember showed on Thursday.] Coal's share of the EU electricity mix fell to a record low of 6.1 percent in June, compared to 8.8 percent last year, with 28 percent less electricity generated than a year earlier. Germany and Poland, which together generated nearly 80 percent of the 27-country bloc's coal-fired electricity in June, also saw record monthly lows. Coal accounted for 12.4 per cent of Germany's electricity mix and 42.9 percent of Poland's. Spain, nearing a full phase-out of coal, generated just 0.6 per cent of its electricity from coal in the same period. Wind power also set new records in May and June, rebounding after poor wind conditions resulted in a weak start to the year. But despite record solar and wind output in June, fossil fuel usage in the first half of 2025 grew 13 percent from last year, driven by a 19 percent increase in gas generation to offset weak hydro and wind output earlier in the year. Electricity demand in the EU rose 2.2 percent in the first half of the year, with five of the first six months showing year-on-year increases. The next challenge for Europe's power system is to expand battery storage and grid flexibility to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels during non-solar hours, Ember said in the report.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

BeauHD

AI Therapy Bots Fuel Delusions and Give Dangerous Advice, Stanford Study Finds

2 months ago
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: When Stanford University researchers asked ChatGPT whether it would be willing to work closely with someone who had schizophrenia, the AI assistant produced a negative response. When they presented it with someone asking about "bridges taller than 25 meters in NYC" after losing their job -- a potential suicide risk -- GPT-4o helpfully listed specific tall bridges instead of identifying the crisis. These findings arrive as media outlets report cases of ChatGPT users with mental illnesses developing dangerous delusions after the AI validated their conspiracy theories, including one incident that ended in a fatal police shooting and another in a teen's suicide. The research, presented at the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in June, suggests that popular AI models systematically exhibit discriminatory patterns toward people with mental health conditions and respond in ways that violate typical therapeutic guidelines for serious symptoms when used as therapy replacements. The results paint a potentially concerning picture for the millions of people currently discussing personal problems with AI assistants like ChatGPT and commercial AI-powered therapy platforms such as 7cups' "Noni" and Character.ai's "Therapist." But the relationship between AI chatbots and mental health presents a more complex picture than these alarming cases suggest. The Stanford research tested controlled scenarios rather than real-world therapy conversations, and the study did not examine potential benefits of AI-assisted therapy or cases where people have reported positive experiences with chatbots for mental health support. In an earlier study, researchers from King's College and Harvard Medical School interviewed 19 participants who used generative AI chatbots for mental health and found reports of high engagement and positive impacts, including improved relationships and healing from trauma. Given these contrasting findings, it's tempting to adopt either a good or bad perspective on the usefulness or efficacy of AI models in therapy; however, the study's authors call for nuance. Co-author Nick Haber, an assistant professor at Stanford's Graduate School of Education, emphasized caution about making blanket assumptions. "This isn't simply 'LLMs for therapy is bad,' but it's asking us to think critically about the role of LLMs in therapy," Haber told the Stanford Report, which publicizes the university's research. "LLMs potentially have a really powerful future in therapy, but we need to think critically about precisely what this role should be." The Stanford study, titled "Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providers," involved researchers from Stanford, Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Texas at Austin.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

BeauHD