Microsoft inks deal to restart Three Mile Island nuclear reactor to fuel its voracious AI ambitions
tomshardware.com
Modern AI data centers consume enormous amounts of power, and it looks like they will get even more power-hungry in the coming years as companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and OpenAI strive towards artificial general intelligence (AGI). Oracle has already outlined plans to use nuclear power plants for its 1-gigawatt datacenters. It looks like Microsoft plans to do the same as it just inked a deal to restart a nuclear power plant to feed its data centers, reports Bloomberg.
You are viewing a single comment
Lol. I just love it how so many people complain that Nuclear doesnt make financial sense, and then the most financially motivated companies just actually figure out that using a nuclear reactor completely privately is best.
Fuck sake, world.
Microsoft jumped fully on the AI hype bandwagon with their partnership in OpenAI and their strategy of forcing GenAI down our throats. Instead of realizing that GenAI is not much more than a novel parlor trick that can't really solve problems, they are now fully committing.
Microsoft invested $1 billion in OpenAI, and reactivating 3 Mile Island is estimated at $1.6 billion. And any return on these investments are not guaranteed. Generally, GenAI is failing to live up to its promises and there is hardly any GenAI use case that actually makes money.
This actually has the potential of greatly damaging Microsoft, so I wouldn't say all their decisions are financially rational and sound.
On the other hand, if they ever admit the whole genAI thing doesn't work, they could just sell the electricity produced by the plant.
. . . The entire multi-billion-dollar hype train goes off the cliff. All the executives that backed it look like clowns, the layoffs come back to bite them - hard - and Microsoft wont recover for a decade.
I mean . . . a boy can dream
The workers will take the blunt of the executive's mismanagement.
Unless they unionize
I mean, even with a union, if a company crumbles the laborers are out of a job.
true?
Which the employees should.
My org's Microsoft reps gave a demo of their upcoming copilot 365 stuff. It can summarize an email chain, use the transcript of a teams meeting to write a report, generate a PowerPoint of the key parts of that report, and write python code that generates charts and whatnot in excel. Assuming it works as advertised, this is going to be really big in offices. All of that would save a ton of time.
Keep in mind that that was a demo to sell Copilot.
The issue that I've got with GenAI is that it has no expert knowledge in your field, knows nothing of your organization, your processes, your products or your problems. It might miss something important and it's your responsibility to review the output. It also makes stuff up instead of admitting not knowing, gives you different answers for the same prompt, and forgets everything when you exhaust the context window.
So if I've got emails full of fluff it might work, but if you've got requirements from your client or some regulation you need to implement you'll have to review the output. And then what's the point?
And whether it works as well as they described remains to be seen. However, they did prove that there's a legitimate use case for generative AI in the office, in most offices. It's not just a toy.
Nuclear safety and penny-pinchers don't make good bedfellows.
ftfy. Possibly ironically, nuclear safety and communism (or totalitarianism) don’t work either. It’s odd, innit.
Pretty sure it has to do with how the plant is designed and operated as opposed to what economic or governmental system it happens to exist under.
Doesn't that design and operation get created by the economic or governmental system it's under?
I think with the USSR at least, that their reactor designs were supposed to be less safe than western reactor designs.
Was it because they were a shitty oligarchy claiming to be communist? Maybe, they did make a lot of garbage decisions.
I think the US has the record for most nuclear disasters by a lot but two of the worst were in the USSR.
They were actually designed to be very safe. It was thought that they literally couldn't fail dangerously. Chernobyl was a huge fluke (that had preventions put in place to ensure it never happened again) that was just a lot of weird things combining at once. The other reactors at Chernobyl continued operating for decades safely, similarly to three mile island which only stopped on 2019 because it wasn't profitable, but now it appears it is again. Both of these nations (and child nations/successors) continued to operate many more nuclear plants without issues. Nuclear is, by far, the safest energy source, including green energy like solar.
Thanks for that. I am not an expert by any means about reactors. I am just going off what my step dad has said and he was a nuclear engineer at Hanford. I did find an article that talks about the shortcomings of the Chernobyl reactor design.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/appendices/rbmk-reactors
Totally agree about nuclear for sure.
How exactly is nuclear energy safer than solar energy?
Mining isn't particularly safe, then refining and construction.
It must have shifted at some point, because the data I see now shows solar as 0.01 death per twh less than nuclear, which is effectively equal because that's the smallest unit of increment they have. Nuclear still produces the lowest CO2 per twh.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Honestly it seems crazy that companies that are so focused on short-term profits in 2024 would be able to make nuclear work.
Every once in a while they get faced with a line on a chart somewhere so unbelievably vertical that they have no choice but to look beyond next quarter. Power consumption going 10x in 2 years is one of those times.
It has been operated privately for a long time, unit 1 (this one) being operated by constellation energy. It stopped in 2019 because Methane had undercut it, and MS has now made an agreement to buy 100% of unit 1s output, but they aren't buying the facility. Most power generation in the US is private, for better or worse (usually worse).
Have they solved the disposal questions?
We haven't solved the "disposal" question of using fossil fuels, and those turned out (or were known along) to cause much bigger problems.
Like most things with environmental impact, we just let later generations deal with it. Somehow.
Mostly, yes. Use breeder reactors to turn long term radioactive waste to sort term radioactive waste, store for short time and done. The downside: it's more expensive to move and process the stuff so nobody wants to do that.
How short is short-term?
Hundred years. Big difference with the 100.000 years of the current waste.
Next question would be:
Who pays for disposal and dismantling old nuclear power plants? Might also be relevant for @Eximius@lemmy.world claim. I guess it‘ll be the tax payer. And then we might have a different answer to the question of financial sense.
Privatizing gains and collectivizing costs still seems to be en vogue.
Relatively yes. There are disposal sites under construction that are in highly stable and environmentally safe locations. One good thing right now is that radioactive waste is temporarily easily stored. Transport of waste is an issue still, but far less of a problem than transporting oil and oil products.
We have, but of course not to the satisfaction of anti-nuclear activists because solving it would be counter to their actual goals.
Nuclear waste is actually quite easy to deal with unless your purposes are best served by it being very difficult to deal with, in which case you make as much trouble as you can for it.
Uh... Yeah. The reactor was in operation until 2019 when it stopped being profitable. Disposal was never a problem.
I'm firmly in the "building new nuclear doesn't make financial sense" camp, but I do think that extending the life of any existing nuclear plant does. Restarting a previously operational nuclear plant lies somewhere in between.
I think when you start looking at how expensive other forms of green energy are (like wind) long term, nuclear looks really good. Short term, yeah it’s expensive, but we need long term solutions.
I don't think that math works out, even when looking over the entire 70+ year life cycle of a nuclear reactor. When it costs $35 billion to build two 1MW reactors, even if it will last 70 years, the construction cost being amortized over every year or every megawatt hour generated is still really expensive, especially when accounting for interest.
And it bakes in that huge cost irreversibly up front, so any future improvements will only make the existing plant less competitive. Wind and solar and geothermal and maybe even fusion will get cheaper over time, but a nuclear plant with most of its costs up front can't. 70 years is a long time to commit to something.
Can you explain how wind and solar get cheaper over time? Especially wind, those blades have to be replaced fairly often and they are expensive.
With nuclear, you're talking about spending money today in year zero to get a nuclear plant built between years 5-10, and operation from years 11-85.
With solar or wind, you're talking about spending money today to get generation online in year 1, and then another totally separate decision in year 25, then another in year 50, and then another in year 75.
So the comparison isn't just 2025 nuclear technology versus 2025 solar technology. It's also 2025 nuclear versus 2075 solar tech. When comparing that entire 75-year lifespan, you're competing with technology that hasn't been invented yet.
Let's take Commanche Peak, a nuclear plant in Texas that went online in 1990. At that time, solar panels cost about $10 per watt in 2022 dollars. By 2022, the price was down to $0.26 per watt. But Commanche Peak is going to keep operating, and trying to compete with the latest and greatest, for the entire 70+ year lifespan of the nuclear plant. If 1990 nuclear plants aren't competitive with 2024 solar panels, why do we believe that 2030 nuclear plants will be competitive with 2060 solar panels or wind turbines?
They have to be competitive with solar panels & grid-scale energy storage costs combined. You can't leave off 90% of the cost and call it a win. Unless you are fine pairing solar panels with natural gas as we currently do; but that defeats much of the purpose of going carbon-free.
They aren't competitive with 2024 solar panels paired with natural gas. But, again, is that really the world you are advocating for?
Yes, I am, especially since you seem to be intentionally ignoring wind+solar. It's much cheaper to have a system that is solar+wind+nat gas, and that particular system can handle all the peaking and base needs today, cheaper than nuclear can. So nuclear is more expensive today than that type of combined generation.
In 10 years, when a new nuclear plant designed today might come on line, we'll probably have enough grid scale storage and demand-shifting technology that we can easily make it through the typical 24-hour cycle, including 10-14 hours of night in most places depending on time of year. Based on the progress we've seen between 2019 and 2024, and the projects currently being designed and constructed today, we can expect grid scale storage to plummet in price and dramatically increase in capacity (both in terms of real-time power capacity measured in watts and in terms of total energy storage capacity measured in watt-hours).
In 20 years, we might have sufficient advanced geothermal to where we can have dispatchable carbon-free electricity, plus sufficient large-scale storage and transmission that we'd have the capacity to power entire states even when the weather is bad for solar/wind in that particular place, through overcapacity from elsewhere.
In 30 years, we might have fusion.
With that in mind, are you ready to sign an 80-year mortgage locking in today's nuclear prices? The economics just don't work out.
Wind and solar also have to be paired with either cheap natural gas or energy storage systems that are often monstrously expensive. Unfortunately these numbers are almost always left out when one discusses prices.
People do appreciate the lights staying on, after all.
Yeah, we haven’t even gotten into the reliability. The have dead times where no output is created that nuclear doesn’t suffer from.
The fact that they want to buy an old nuclear reactor instead of building a new one should be all you need to know to realise that it's not financially viable.
No, that's only because the US has constructed barriers to make it cost more and take longer, to protect conventional dirty energy. Those barriers do not need to be as large. A new reactor being built would take several years, and they don't want to wait for that. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be profitable, although again the barriers may make it unprofitable or at least a riskier investment.
Edit: also, they aren't buying this reactor. They are not in the energy business. They're buying 100% of the output of unit 1. That's all. The previous owners are still running it. It stopped temporarily in 2019 because Methane undercut it, because Methane does not have to pay for its pollution like nuclear does.
Three Mile Island is the epitome of
How so? It's easy to say things so bold, but I'd like to hear your reasoning.
Nuclear falls under 'conventional' - the PWR design of TMI is one of the oldest and most common types of nuclear reactor. It's just another way of creating steam to drive a turbine which then generates electricity.
Nuclear is also anything but clean. People love to call nuclear 'clean' because its low in emissions, but that's ignoring the requirement for either safe storage of radioactive material or reprocessing thereof, as well as the emission of radioactivity in the water cycled through the reactor.
Even if you call it conventional (I don't think anyone would, but sure) it isn't dirty. Dirty energy is stuff that releases pollution that isn't contained. Nuclear releases water vapor and that's all.
It is very clean. The radioactive material it produces that must be contained is very easy to contain safely. It really isn't an issue. Check these videos out if you want to learn more about it. (The second video is another plant owned and operated by the same company that is being contracted here.)
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k?si=VhZ6LZJcA0HJsz2z
https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU?si=6Wn_1t-vNwSFYCMP
Edit: It's also the cleanest and nearly the safest source of energy, including the disasters. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
I love how the 'Death rates per unit of electricity production' graphic highlights deaths from a 1975 dam break in China, therefore making hydro seem less safe than nuclear, when the dam in question up to that point hadn't produced a single megawatt of electricity (and by the looks of it, still hasn't to this day). At the same time it appears to conveniently ignore the increased mortality among uranium miners.
Equally then, the nuclear disasters shouldn't count, right? No, we count everything, including the accidents, even if measures have been put in place to prevent them from happening again. The dam was made to produce electricity. The construction of that is still a factor in the deaths. Same with solar, coal, wind, nuclear, and everything else. If the deaths wouldn't have happened otherwise then they are to blame.
How do you assume it's ignoring their increased mortality?
Deaths from an accident at an active nuclear power plant are not the same as deaths caused by a burst dam that was originally intended to produce electricity one day, but has never produced any. Especially if you call the statistic 'Deaths per unit of electricity production'. At the time of the accident, it was just a dam, construction of any hydroelectric facilities was nowhere near beginning, so calling it a 'hydropower accident' is highly debatable (probably as at least as debatable as calling nuclear 'conventional'). Without the inclusion of those deaths, hydro would be shown to be even safer than nuclear, given that it has produced nearly twice as much electricity in the time span covered by those statistics, while having caused a similar number of deaths (if you continue to ignore the increased miner mortality, otherwise nuclear will look way worse). The article also does not cite how they determined the number of 171000 deaths, given that estimates for the Banqian dam failure range between 26000 and 240000. The author mentions (but does not cite) a paper by Benjamin Sovacool from 2016, which analyzes the deaths caused by different forms of energy but, crucially, omits the Banqian dam death toll. I will try to get hold of that paper to see the reasoning, but I suspect it may align with mine.
The article makes zero mention of any such thing, and the section about how the deaths are calculated (footnote 3 in this section) only calls out the deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Direct quote from the footnote:
No mention at all of any other deaths or causes of death, nothing whatsoever. It's the deaths from two nuclear accidents, that's all. The figures from the cited study alone would multiply the number of nuclear deaths in this statistic. What's worse, the author has published another article on nuclear energy which essentially comes to the exact same conclusions. But if you include deaths from a burst dam that has never produced electricity (but was planned to do so eventually), then you must include deaths among people who mine the material destined to produce electricity in a nuclear plant.
To me it simply looks like the author of this article is highly biased towards nuclear, and has done very selective homework.
It's not quite equivalent right? Using an existing plant is cheaper and faster than building a new one?
Its like saying a datacenter is not financially viable only because top brass decided to use a perfectly good existing one.
I see this as a good thing because they'll invest more on making energy efficient. That's something bound to trickle down and help poorer regions unless they die off first.
Yeah for sure it is cheaper, if they only have to pay the operational costs. Not the ones of building and decomissioning the plant. Lol.
OP really thought they had something there.
It doesn't make financial sense to build new nuclear power plants. They're hugely expensive and such projects routinely run well over time as well as budget. If it did make sense, Microsoft would be building them, instead of reviving the site of one of the worst nuclear disasters in the US. Thing is, they want lots of power, and they want it yesterday. By the time you can build a new nuclear plant to satisfy these needs, AI will have run its course and big tech will be on to the next scam.
But hey, why pay attention to such nuances?