this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
84 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1335 readers
170 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Interesting as old nuclear plants are always said to be expensive to operate due to maintenance and old technology issues. Microsoft must really be in a bind to go for an expensive and uncertain supply.
Advanced bayesian estimations show that the risks of a nuclear plant that is not yet operational are very low. And the chance that they will still be employed at microsoft (after the bubble pops) by 2028 is exceedingly low, reducing effective risk significantly !
I was thinking of the economics as opposed to the safety aspects. Seems an expensive option.
Nuclear power has fairly predictable amortized returns. I imagine that this is worth the cost to MS over the next two decades or so; we have no idea what their current energy premium is like, and this plant doesn't have to be as cheap as a new plant, just cheaper than the current premium.
If it was cheaper than the current premium, I expect that the plant would still be in operation, however as I don’t know the numbers so it must be worthwhile.
almost like it was literally in the article