this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
315 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

58180 readers
5013 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 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 4 points 11 hours 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 10 hours 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 2 points 10 hours 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 1 points 16 hours 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 15 hours 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 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours 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.