Microsoft inks deal to restart Three Mile Island nuclear reactor to fuel its voracious AI ambitions - eviltoast

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.

  • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    we could use that extra energy to offset a bunch of existing carbon emissions now. This is still waste. If it’s going to be started up again, and its energy used for something useless, it’s waste.

    • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Microsoft would do it with or without the power plant. Make no mistake about that.

      The same argument could be said if they made a 1GW solar farm, or any other form of power generation. Unless you have a way to legislatively prevent Microsoft from producing their own energy or prevent acquisition of decommissioned plants, I don’t see how you can prevent waste.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      That argument presupposes that the reactor would otherwise be brought back into operation, which I don’t think is necessarily the case.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      Is it going to be started up again?

      If M$ doesn’t invest into this for their own purposes, is it still going to be started up? Or is your position that M$ should be investing in a nuclear power plant for the good of the world?

      Because while I can agree with the idea, we all know that would never happen. So if it was never going to be started up again, we are at 0 gain or loss no matter what they do with it.

      And that’s ignoring the fact that they are apparently intending on using that energy anyway.

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        it would be a missed opportunity in the sense of “if they can allow it to be turned it back on to waste its power on this dead-end tech, why couldn’t it have been allowed to operate again (earlier) for reasons we actually need?”

        I’m not putting the blame on microsoft here, even though it might seem that way. But it’s not microsoft who need to give the go-ahead for this to happen. It’s the higher ups who decided to give the capacity to microsoft.

        Yes it was still going to be used, but they could have been paying out the ass for it, which could fund other projects.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          It operated for a long time profitably. It ceased operations in 2019 because it became unprofitable, largely because Methane undercut it. Methane should cost a lot more, but they don’t have to pay for negative externalities. Nuclear has to contain all of its waste, and handle it carefully.

          • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            as opposed to just spewing it out in the air? (carbon 14 is a thing, those things emit a lot more radioactivity to the environment)

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              I’m not saying they should not contain it. I’m saying other sources should have to. We only force one energy source has to pay for the cost of all of its waste. Why is that? It’s only to the benefit of dirty energy.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          If there were plans for it to be used, then I’m with you. But if I’m being honest, I’d put money on the original plan consisting of letting it sit there for decades to come without being used.

          And “paying out the ass” is what they will likely be doing, just to the private corpos that own the plant. It’s not government run, the money would never circle back to taxpayers beyond normal taxation.

          • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            that’s what I’m complaining about. If there can be plans now, why was the original plan just “let it rot”?

            • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Greed? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              I don’t think you’re going to get the answer you want here. But I’d be willing to bet M$ is dropping the $$$ for whatever retrofits and repairs need to be done, with the agreement being they get the power near cost for a set duration.

              Obviously that’s speculation on my part, but would explain the situation quite cleanly.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      If it also shifts their current load off the existing grid, that might be beneficial.