this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
405 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59381 readers
3884 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 36 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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 27 points 1 month 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.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 18 points 1 month 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 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 4 points 1 month 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 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 2 points 1 month ago

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