Three Mile Island to be restarted

[The Great Zaganza]

Because of environmental lawsuits even during the construction phase, lawsuits made possible by that same state. And because of NIMBYism.

But no plant needs to be built here. That cost is already paid.

All of these are things that have to priced in - which is why I'm Nuclear power is actually too expensive.

 

[Ziggurat]

All of these are things that have to priced in

But they don't have to be priced in for TMI, because they've already been paid.

And yet you still oppose it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

But they don't have to be priced in for TMI, because they've already been paid.

And yet you still oppose it.

"It should not cost what it costs" is a not very convincing argument.

I guess an economic argument for nuclear power could be made - even if you take ALL costs into consideration (which no one but environmentalists do)

But currently, it is very unattractive to investors, as it will take 1-2 decades for any ROI to get going, with huge amounts of money up front and the very realistic fear of massive cost and time overruns.
Add to that the fact that is is ANCIENT technology - nuclear companies have decided not to do any innovation, relying on very old designs instead. And new system will first have to prove themselves in practice to be worth the risk of tens of billions per unit.

Nuclear power might pay off - but there are so many better, faster, saver ways to make money.

It is always amazing when people who claim to believe in The Market claim it must be wrong if it doesn't support what they want.

 

[Ziggurat]

"It should not cost what it costs" is a not very convincing argument.

You're appealing to costs of other things, not the cost of the actual thing. This thread isn't about nuclear in general, it's about TMI specifically. And you specifically oppose keeping TMI running. You can't justify that position on the basis of what you think it costs to construct a new plant.

The people who actually know the costs involved in TMI and have to pay them signed the deal. It's their money. I think they probably know what they're doing with it, and as a bonus, if they don't, they lose that money, not me or you.

Add to that the fact that is is ANCIENT technology

So are windmills. This is not a relevant metric.

 

[theprestige]

is ANCIENT technology

It's a steam engine.

 

[ahhell]

Power sources that are ancient tech.
Windmills
Damns
Burning fuel.
Steam engines
??

I guess we should only be using solar power from now on? Oh, wait, that's actually the most ancient source of power, the source of power for all things on earth except pressure on the earths core and spontaneous fission in the crust.

It shouldn't cost what it costs is a valid argument when part of the reason it costs that much is due to unwarranted fear mongering and of course, in the case of an existing plant, most of that cost has already been paid, well except the frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Ziggurat]

Power sources that are ancient tech.
Windmills
Damns
Burning fuel.
Steam engines
??

In fairness, we've only had solar cells since the 19th century.

 

[Thermal]

I willing to bet if you do the comparison to KW hours produced, nuclear still comes out ahead of coal and oil.

Ya #MeToo, but what does that remotely have to do with anything under discussion? Coal or oil fired generation are not on MS' proposals, nor literally anyone else's, least of all in this discussion.

Its fine to compare nuclear to wind and solar but its also BS to do so.

Boldly asserted with zero evidence, argument, or Christ even clarification.

Though, as it turns out, nuclear currently beats coal as a source of electricity in the US, and renewables, including hydro beats both. Natural gas is the biggest source, which is a good thing as its cleaner and safer than coal or oil.

Yes. Great. Still not remotely what we are talking about.

 

[ahhell]

Ya #MeToo, but what does that remotely have to do with anything under discussion? Coal or oil fired generation are not on MS' proposals, nor literally anyone else's, least of all in this discussion.

Boldly asserted with zero evidence, argument, or Christ even clarification.

Yes. Great. Still not remotely what we are talking about.

What's it got to do with this? Microsoft needs power, what are the possible sources of that power? Renewables aren't on MS's proposal either, so what.

Yes it is all what we are talking about. Except for you, because like all opponents of nuke power, you want to ignore that the grid is a mix of sources and the alternative to nukes is not just wind and solar, its gas, coal, oil, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal. Microsoft isn't proposing to restart 3 mile island and plugging their servers into it in isolation, they are proposing restarting 3 mile island to feed the grid and plugging their servers into the grid.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ya #MeToo, but what does that remotely have to do with anything under discussion? Coal or oil fired generation are not on MS' proposals, nor literally anyone else's, least of all in this discussion.

Perhaps not explicitly, but implicitly. Server farms are going to draw a pretty constant load on the grid. You need a constant supply. You can't get that with solar or wind. So even if you add solar and/or wind, you're still going to be using coal or oil as well to power those farms.

 

[Thermal]

But, dude, nuclear is yesterday's technology.

So break it down: TMI was built in the '60s. That's about three generations ago. What was three generations before that? Oh, about the year of our Lord 1900. Nuclear isn't the new kid on the block anymore; it's a midpoint technology in public power grids.

Power sources that are ancient tech.
Windmills
Damns
Burning fuel.
Steam engines
??

I guess we should only be using solar power from now on? Oh, wait, that's actually the most ancient source of power, the source of power for all things on earth except pressure on the earths core and spontaneous fission in the crust.

And some are clean, some are not. The interest in clean is fairly recent. Nuclear does outstanding on that front, except again when things go wrong. And that annoying spent core thingy (I always wondered if Russia had our core disposal sites designated as strike targets).

It shouldn't cost what it costs is a valid argument when part of the reason it costs that much is due to unwarranted fear mongering and of course, in the case of an existing plant, most of that cost has already been paid, well except the frivolous lawsuits.

Are fear mongering and frivolous lawsuits the reason they shut down the reactor five years ago? My understanding was that it was simply cost ineffective. Sooooo...fire that puppy back up again to generate more cost ineffective power to pass on to PSE&G customers again because MS wants their balls fondled?

If Microsoft needs a city sized power upgrade, let them provide it. Their own generators and all. But reactivating the plant whose design hasn't anticipated some shmuck maintenance guy doing exactly what a schmuck maintainence guy would do is not the best idea.

I mean, I'm arguing that Three Mile Island very specifically might be poorly designed. Those ******* quite literally didn't realize that Joey the $12/hr maintenance worker could cause a goddamned meltdown. TMI wasn't his by a meteor or massive earthquake. It just was designed in such a way that the guy picking his nose and doing cleanup wouldn't accidentally melt the goddamned reactor down.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are fear mongering and frivolous lawsuits the reason they shut down the reactor five years ago? My understanding was that it was simply cost ineffective. Sooooo...fire that puppy back up again to generate more cost ineffective power to pass on to PSE&G customers again because MS wants their balls fondled?

Marginal power is ALWAYS more expensive than your existing average power. And Microsoft has to get marginal power. So this doesn't have to be competitive with average rates, it has to be competitive with marginal rates. And Microsoft evidently thinks it is.

And they aren't passing this cost on to PSE&G customers. That's the whole point. Microsoft is buying this power themselves. They're footing the bill.

If Microsoft needs a city sized power upgrade, let them provide it.

That's what they're doing.

I mean, I'm arguing that Three Mile Island very specifically might be poorly designed.

You say that like there haven't been any modifications to the design and operating procedures of TMI-1 since the accident. Why on earth would you think that?

 

[Thermal]

Marginal power is ALWAYS more expensive than your existing average power. And Microsoft has to get marginal power. So this doesn't have to be competitive with average rates, it has to be competitive with marginal rates. And Microsoft evidently thinks it is.

And they aren't passing this cost on to PSE&G customers. That's the whole point. Microsoft is buying this power themselves. They're footing the bill.



That's what they're doing.

No they are not. They are funding to dust off the TMI reactor and reconnect it to the grid, then they use the grid like everyone else, and TMI becomes, again, a public problem, starting with the reason it was shut down in the first place: cost inefficiency. I mean, they literally shut down the entire plant because it was so bad. That's a big deal. It's not like they found gasoline cheaper at the next station down the street; its a huge undertaking to cut off a huge power supply and build another. That tells me the thing was basically such a turkey it wasn't worth salvaging.

You say that like there haven't been any modifications to the design and operating procedures of TMI-1 since the accident. Why on earth would you think that?

I'm sure there have been improvements. Whether or not they've troubleshot them to the point where the maintenance guy doesn't melt it down is unknown to me.

 

[Thermal]

What's it got to do with this? Microsoft needs power, what are the possible sources of that power? Renewables aren't on MS's proposal either, so what.

The whole point of my argument is that renewable perhaps should be encouraged in a situation like this.

Yes it is all what we are talking about. Except for you, because like all opponents of nuke power,

Oh, bull ****. Would you please stop this? Nuke is one of my favorites now, but I don't think it's the future anymore since we've passed critical mass in making renewable cost effective.

TMI was shut down because it was a prohibitively expensive source of power. So pursue a grid upgrade that is NOT prohibitively expensive is all I'm suggesting.

you want to ignore that the grid is a mix of sources and the alternative to nukes is not just wind and solar, its gas, coal, oil, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal.

Obviously, which is why renewable should be encouraged. There are multiple sources feeding in, so why go back to the one that was already in the trash can?

Microsoft isn't proposing to restart 3 mile island and plugging their servers into it in isolation, they are proposing restarting 3 mile island to feed the grid and plugging their servers into the grid.

Yes, I know. I've said so multiple times. We all know.

 

[Ziggurat]

No they are not. They are funding to dust off the TMI reactor and reconnect it to the grid, then they use the grid like everyone else, and TMI becomes, again, a public problem, starting with the reason it was shut down in the first place: cost inefficiency.

No. This is wrong. Microsoft isn't just funding to start up the reactor, they have a 20-year agreement to buy the power that the plant produces. Yes, they're getting it through the grid, but Microsoft is still buying what the plant produces.

I mean, they literally shut down the entire plant because it was so bad.

No. They shut it down because it wasn't economical under the supply and demand at the time. But the demand is going to change. In fact, Microsoft is basically guaranteeing the demand.

I'm sure there have been improvements. Whether or not they've troubleshot them to the point where the maintenance guy doesn't melt it down is unknown to me.

So your opinions are shaped by uninformed paranoia. Got it.

 

[Ziggurat]

TMI was shut down because it was a prohibitively expensive source of power.

You say that like it costs twice as much as they can sell it for. But that's not how it works. If it costs them $101 per MWhr and they can sell it for $100 per MWhr, that's prohibitive. Hell, if it costs them $100 and they can sell if for $100, that's prohibitive. The difference between prohibitive and profitable can be quite small. All it may take is a little change in demand.

And Microsoft just guaranteed that demand.

So pursue a grid upgrade that is NOT prohibitively expensive is all I'm suggesting.

With what? Microsoft needs 24/7 reliable power, and solar and wind can't provide that. Gas and oil can, but they want to get away from that.

 

[Thermal]

No. This is wrong. Microsoft isn't just funding to start up the reactor, they have a 20-year agreement to buy the power that the plant produces. Yes, they're getting it through the grid, but Microsoft is still buying what the plant produces.

Which is what I said. And the inefficient plant they thought was not worth saving is again in the publics lap. Microsoft buying the power is just their corporate cheapest way out. Im.suggesting that the relevant authorities might do well to resist MS' best interests and consider everyone else's.

No. They shut it down because it wasn't economical under the supply and demand at the time. But the demand is going to change. In fact, Microsoft is basically guaranteeing the demand.

Again, no. They didn't deactivate it because there was no demand. They deactivated it because it cost too much per KW to be viable for the grid. If MS is going to need a city sized upgrade, have them provide their own without scraping the unmelted down reactors out of the trash and reusing them.

So your opinions are shaped by uninformed paranoia. Got it.

No, exactly the opposite. My opinions are formed by the thing's historical performance. A decade into operation and the ****** melted down. That's not good.

But we're really not getting anywhere with this. See ya on the next one.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Nuclear does a TERRIBLE job of being clean when comes just to mining - the necessary input of power and water is enormous, and no one wants to do the clean-up after.

The environmental damage from uranium mining in the US is significant - but since the people most affected are Native Americans, no one really cares.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is what I said. And the inefficient plant they thought was not worth saving is again in the publics lap. Microsoft buying the power is just their corporate cheapest way out.

What the hell are you talking about? It's NOT in the public's lap, that's what I'm trying to tell you. Microsoft is buying power at a price that's economic for the owners of the plant. No public laps are involved.

Im.suggesting that the relevant authorities might do well to resist MS' best interests and consider everyone else's.

The locals are heavily in favor.

Again, no. They didn't deactivate it because there was no demand. They deactivated it because it cost too much per KW to be viable for the grid.

At the market price that they could get at the time. But not at the price Microsoft will pay. Do you not get that? Are you not aware that Microsoft has guaranteed the purchase price?

No, exactly the opposite. My opinions are formed by the thing's historical performance. A decade into operation and the ****** melted down. That's not good.

TMI-1 has had no serious problems in more than 40 years of operation. That's its historical performance.

 

[theprestige]

The whole point of my argument is that renewable perhaps should be encouraged in a situation like this.

A situation like this?

This is a situation where a paying customer is offering to buy as much power, right now, as can be provided by a nuclear plant that is already built, is already ready to go, and has already paid off much of its startup costs (for better or worse), right now.

What would the aspiration to build a renewable energy source at some point in the future offer, in a situation like this?