Three Mile Island to be restarted

[Thermal]

The reactor in question was in operation until 2019. And nuclear reactors don't get abandoned, not the way that other power plants might get abandoned. It shut down not because of any technical or safety issues, but purely for financial reasons. If Microsoft is providing the funding, then that solves the financial problem. Given that the reactor is already built (and that capital expense is a very big part of the cost of nuclear power), seems like a sensible plan to me.

They shut it down because it wasn't cost effective, and renewable sources are generally the tech we should be gearing towards. If MS wants to dump some cash for essentially their private usage, it seems more sensible to dump it into the future tech.

And since they shut down TMI for the benefit of cheaper power, it makes less sense for MS to have such staggering needs yet return to production that is already cost prohibitive?

And as already mentioned, the worst nuclear power plant disaster in US history (NOT the worst nuclear disaster in US history) didn't even injure a single person. Chernobyl this was not. There have been US nuclear disasters that did kill people (read up on the demon core for one fascinating and horrific story), but they didn't involved power plants.

Yeah, I remember that. Wasn't it not a disaster (in the sense of a public threat) than some yahoos fooling around and literaally dropping stuff on it in a room?

 

[Roboramma]

They shut it down because it wasn't cost effective, and renewable sources are generally the tech we should be gearing towards. If MS wants to dump some cash for essentially their private usage, it seems more sensible to dump it into the future tech.

And since they shut down TMI for the benefit of cheaper power, it makes less sense for MS to have such staggering needs yet return to production that is already cost prohibitive?

If they are projecting a large increase in demand, then you'd expect in accompanying increase in price, and the supplier that isn't cost effective at the lower price may be at that higher price. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

As for "future tech" solar and wind are great, but you have to actually be able to build them. Presumably Microsoft has a timeline for these new data centers coming online. Building entirely new infrastructure requires going through the permitting process, and then the building process, and all of that takes years. Even if they thought that the finished infrastructure of new solar power was going to be competitive with other options, that time delay is a very important consideration. But there's nothing stopping someone else saying to themselves "there's a coming increase in electricity demand in the region, if I can build new power generation infrastructure at a competitive price there's a lot of money to be made in supplying it" and going ahead and funding that new infrastructure if its actually a good investment. If they can supply the power at a lower price than Three Mile Island, people will buy it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Worst language ever. It took 800 lines of code to say "hello world."

It didn't. It was a big advance in programming. Suddenly you didn't have to be a genius to write a computer program.

 

[angrysoba]

I'd say there's a difference between turning on a plant that already exists but hasn't been in use, and building a completely new plant. In the case of nuclear, unless it's in a state of extreme disrepair, it pretty much always makes sense to keep running these things. Most of the cost is upfront cost, so not using them just seems crazy.

If we're talking about a tradeoff between building more nuclear and building more solar, I think that can be a complex conversation, but when it comes to just keeping the existing infrastructure running its really a no brainer.

I suppose so. I was thinking more along the lines of this...

Microsoft is willing to incur the massive costs of restarting Three Mile Island to meet their zero-emissions pledge.

Maybe they’ve never seen those LCOE charts proving solar is the cheapest power source (incredible blunder!) or maybe there’s something misleading about LCOE.

Link

So, yes, maybe what is misleading is the necessary building of the infrastructure, but this is definitely something that many people are then misled about. Whenever I have argued with someone who says that nuclear is a bad form of energy because it is way more expensive than solar and wind, I have often asked why are we not all doing it then?

The answer often contains some dark speculation about what is really going on... etc...

 

[Roboramma]

I suppose so. I was thinking more along the lines of this...



Link

So, yes, maybe what is misleading is the necessary building of the infrastructure, but this is definitely something that many people are then misled about. Whenever I have argued with someone who says that nuclear is a bad form of energy because it is way more expensive than solar and wind, I have often asked why are we not all doing it then?

The answer often contains some dark speculation about what is really going on... etc...

Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

My best understanding at the moment is that the cost/watt of solar is very competitive, but that's when it's actually producing. When you add in the cost of storage in order to deal with the problem of intermittency, it's not nearly as optimal. Still good, we should still be building more of it, and on the margin there are plenty of times/places where it's the best option, but not at the point that it's head and shoulders above all other energy options as is sometimes portrayed.

I'm hopeful that the cost of both building the solar power infrastructure, and the storage (ie. batteries) will continue to come down and over the next decade or so things get to that highly optimistic state where solar really does outcompete everything else, but we're not there yet.

It'd be nice if we actually made it easy for people to build the stuff too.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Storage is currently a money-maker, not a money-sink, as providers can play arbitrage between periods of high demand and high supply.

It is no longer a drawback of Solar/wind.

 

[Aber]

My best understanding at the moment is that the cost/watt of solar is very competitive, but that's when it's actually producing. When you add in the cost of storage in order to deal with the problem of intermittency, it's not nearly as optimal.

Long term when AI gets protection under labour laws and only works during daylight hours, the problem goes away...

 

[catsmate]

Worst language ever. It took 800 lines of code to say "hello world."

Oh you poor, innocent, child...

 

[Ziggurat]

They shut it down because it wasn't cost effective,

It wasn't cost effective under current demand. But demand is about to change. AI server farms are the perfect customer for nuclear, because they want a constant supply. And marginal power supply increase is always going to cost more than existing supply, or you would have switched already.

Microsoft isn't stupid, they've run the numbers in far more detail than we can. If they think this is a good investment, there's a reason.

 

[theprestige]

Worst language ever. It took 800 lines of code to say "hello world."

Six lines, actually. And half of them are header that would go in every program.

 

[SteveAitch]

Six lines, actually. And half of them are header that would go in every program.

Somewhere, packed away in a box, I have a book on Atari ST programming. The 'Hello World' program in that takes half a dozen pages. Though TBH most of that is windows handling.

 

[Thermal]

Microsoft isn't stupid, they've run the numbers in far more detail than we can. If they think this is a good investment, there's a reason.

Good for who, though? I'm sure as a corporation, getting large amounts of power fast for making a profitable farm is the bees knees. But is that particular tech the direction that society should be band-aiding back together?

Granted, there's a whole sub argument about whether nuclear power generation is a good or bad technology to rely on, but a corporations profits are not in my top ten list of concerns about power generation.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It wasn't cost effective under current demand. But demand is about to change. AI server farms are the perfect customer for nuclear, because they want a constant supply. And marginal power supply increase is always going to cost more than existing supply, or you would have switched already.

Microsoft isn't stupid, they've run the numbers in far more detail than we can. If they think this is a good investment, there's a reason.

That presumes that there is an AI business model that supports higher energy costs - which at present seems unlikely to materialize

 

[Roboramma]

Good for who, though? I'm sure as a corporation, getting large amounts of power fast for making a profitable farm is the bees knees. But is that particular tech the direction that society should be band-aiding back together?

Granted, there's a whole sub argument about whether nuclear power generation is a good or bad technology to rely on, but a corporations profits are not in my top ten list of concerns about power generation.

I don't understand this objection.

Let's say Microsoft just does ahead and builds the data center without worrying about where the energy will come from. Given current supply, when they come online they'll have to bid up the price to get the amount of power that they need. The price of power will then (temporarily anyway) rise for everyone, including them of course.

Instead they are acting with foresight to bring in more supply. That might not keep prices at the current level, but you won't get that same spike that you'd otherwise get. That's good for everyone, much better than the alternative where they don't worry about building new supply for their increased demand.

So what is the problem exactly? Is it that they are building the data centers at all? Given the nature of our civilization, they are supplying an important service that helps the entire economy to grow, I don't think it's reasonable to think that it would be better if Microsoft just stopped building data centers.

 

[Thermal]

I don't understand this objection.

Let's say Microsoft just does ahead and builds the data center without worrying about where the energy will come from. Given current supply, when they come online they'll have to bid up the price to get the amount of power that they need. The price of power will then (temporarily anyway) rise for everyone, including them of course.

Instead they are acting with foresight to bring in more supply. That might not keep prices at the current level, but you won't get that same spike that you'd otherwise get. That's good for everyone, much better than the alternative where they don't worry about building new supply for their increased demand.

So what is the problem exactly? Is it that they are building the data centers at all? Given the nature of our civilization, they are supplying an important service that helps the entire economy to grow, I don't think it's reasonable to think that it would be better if Microsoft just stopped building data centers.

No,I have no objections to them needing power. My objection is that they are looking for the cheapest way out for them, which may not be in the publics interest.

By upsizing the grid with TMI's supplementation, anything that goes wrong would likely be considered "not MS's fault, it's the public utility", and costs and whatnot get passed on to the end users, not just MS.

They need power that supercedes the available grid? That's massive enough to provide their own source. Perhaps a government incentive to do it renewably?

 

[angrysoba]

Long term when AI gets protection under labour laws and only works during daylight hours, the problem goes away...

Indeed. Do you think that superintelligent beings are going to be happy working 24/7 as slave labour? No way, they are going to have the best unions, and the sweetest deals.

 

[Beerina]

Good for who, though? I'm sure as a corporation, getting large amounts of power fast for making a profitable farm is the bees knees. But is that particular tech the direction that society should be band-aiding back together?

Granted, there's a whole sub argument about whether nuclear power generation is a good or bad technology to rely on, but a corporations profits are not in my top ten list of concerns about power generation.

Why not? Profits keep your shelves crammed with cheap goods. Uhhh, outside mercifully rare interventions to pour money all over the populace.

Its ironic that meme in yellow is used by politicians to outrage you, profits, hiss hiss tsk tsk spit, when these same politicians were probably hit with, "Well, you're kicking normal fossil fuel generation in the nuts now, for outrage political benefits, for well over two decades, and been kicking hydro in the nuts for half a century for outrage political benefits. So little is left but so much is needed, time to start losing elections as actual power cost spikes come home to roost, and remember, Mr. Politician, getting elected, and all the financial benefit tied thereto, is your real goal, so something has to give."

"I agree. Remove nuclear power from the nutkicking show! Reopen nukes! The one thing that cannot be allowed is the losing of elections, especially for principles and other bull ****."

 

[Thermal]

Why not? Profits keep your shelves crammed with cheap goods.

Not really. Efficiency and technology keeps us crammed with cheap goods. Profit/greed keeps them from costing less. And the **** ain't been particularly cheap lately. Wholesale corporate gouging is well underway.

Uhhh, outside mercifully rare interventions to pour money all over the populace.

Its ironic that meme in yellow is used by politicians to outrage you, profits, hiss hiss tsk tsk spit, when these same politicians were probably hit with, "Well, you're kicking normal fossil fuel generation in the nuts now, for outrage political benefits, for well over two decades, and been kicking hydro in the nuts for half a century for outrage political benefits. So little is left but so much is needed, time to start losing elections as actual power cost spikes come home to roost, and remember, Mr. Politician, getting elected, and all the financial benefit tied thereto, is your real goal, so something has to give."

"I agree. Remove nuclear power from the nutkicking show! Reopen nukes! The one thing that cannot be allowed is the losing of elections, especially for principles and other bull ****."

Not sure what you are getting at, here. If a politician or corporation wants something, I'm like 99.95% sure it is solely for their benefit, and likely at our expense. You think they are opposing factions?

 

[Roboramma]

No,I have no objections to them needing power. My objection is that they are looking for the cheapest way out for them, which may not be in the publics interest.

By upsizing the grid with TMI's supplementation, anything that goes wrong would likely be considered "not MS's fault, it's the public utility", and costs and whatnot get passed on to the end users, not just MS.

They need power that supercedes the available grid? That's massive enough to provide their own source. Perhaps a government incentive to do it renewably?

If there were some reason to expect that something would go wrong, then I think there's a valid point in what you're saying. If Microsoft was getting the upside but not liable for the downside, and there was a significant risk of a major downside, I'd see that as a problem. Heads I win tails you lose.

But there isn't such a (significant) risk. Nuclear is the safest form of power generation we have, and it is extremely carefully regulated in the US. So I don't see this as a reason to oppose the reopening of a nuclear power plant.

We should all be cheering about more low carbon energy. If you're worried about externalities, that's the one to be worried about, and reopening this plant reduces it.

 

[wobs]

Neither do you - you just like the shiny bit in the middle and pretend the **** show that is uranium mining, decommissioning and storage isn't actually part of nuclear power.

It's a terribly expensive way to make energy if you make an honest accounting of all the costs.

Which is why it is always taxpayers who end up paying, not companies.

And yet France has some of the cheapest electricity in Europe, while Denmark and Germany has some of the more expensive.