Big Tech Has Cozied Up To Nuclear Energy (theverge.com) 37
Tech giants Amazon and Microsoft have inked major deals with U.S. nuclear power plants to fuel their energy-hungry data centers, marking a shift in the industry's power sourcing strategy. The move comes as AI-driven facilities strain companies' climate goals, pushing them towards carbon-free electricity sources.
Microsoft plans to revive the shuttered Three Mile Island plant by 2028, while Amazon secured power from Pennsylvania's Susquehanna Nuclear facility in a $650 million deal. Google is also exploring nuclear options, including small modular reactors still under development. This trend could potentially triple U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050, according to a Department of Energy report.
Microsoft plans to revive the shuttered Three Mile Island plant by 2028, while Amazon secured power from Pennsylvania's Susquehanna Nuclear facility in a $650 million deal. Google is also exploring nuclear options, including small modular reactors still under development. This trend could potentially triple U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050, according to a Department of Energy report.
Issues with nukes (Score:4, Interesting)
Data centers that aren't backing real-time applications could throttle if demand power was needed elsewhere. And nuke plants are slow to adjust.
It seems to me this is a potentially good marriage - let the data centers throttle themselves based on current power grid load, keeping the nuke plant at a steady output.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me this is a potentially good marriage - let the data centers throttle themselves based on current power grid load, keeping the nuke plant at a steady output.
In principle, I agree with you. In practice, Big Tech companies are hardly models of restraint, and they're also empire builders in the worst sense. I predict that eventually the larger grid will take a back seat to data centre "needs".
Of course, refining and rolling out better grid storage solutions could make that point moot. But then, with enough storage to handle fluctuations on both the supply side and the load side, why go nuclear at all? Wind and solar should be enough.
I'd rather see this whole out-o
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me this is a potentially good marriage - let the data centers throttle themselves based on current power grid load, keeping the nuke plant at a steady output.
In principle, I agree with you. In practice, Big Tech companies are hardly models of restraint, and they're also empire builders in the worst sense. I predict that eventually the larger grid will take a back seat to data centre "needs".
I can see the baby AIs hovering around their entertainment center, getting ready to sit down to a nice sitcom about how humans argued with one another during this time period:
Big tech: We need more power.
Government: We need power for the people.
Big tech: WE NEED MORE POWER!
Government: For to why?
Big Tech: For to replace all humans.
Government: Kinda sounds bad-ish. Though that does get rid of voting. Hmm.
Big tech: Also, for to future profits!
Government: Sold. Would we like to burn bodies for fuel?
AI
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, refining and rolling out better grid storage solutions could make that point moot.
Now there's a deal for data centers and power providers. A huge battery system that works two ways - backup power if they get disconnected from the grid, but providing grid stability back to the power company the rest of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
No one will be doing load shedding without being paid for it. Many data centres are not backing real-time applications, they are backing profitable applications. There's little profit in not getting your next 2 trillion parameter LLM to market. A datacentre which has the ability to drastically throttle away on demand is a datacentre which was over provisioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Simpsons (Score:1)
As long as they keep them out of Ukraine. At least then we won't run the risk of another Chernobyl, just another mere Three Mile Island.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Simpsons (Score:2)
TMI was a wet squib.
Nuclear is our only hope (Score:1, Insightful)
Anyone opposed to nuclear power is a climate change denier, whether they admit it or not.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Anyone opposed to nuclear power is a climate change denier, whether they admit it or not.
Nice gaslighting. But no, we can very much realise climate change is a problem while at the same time reflecting on the fact that any investment you make now will not bring a single nuclear reactor online in any meaningful timeframe to avert climate change.
You're standing on train tracks looking at an oncoming train knowing it will hit you. Do you take the nuclear approach: Lobby the government to enact a 20 year project to move the train tracks away from where you're standing? Or do you do something else i
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that many "environmental" organizations were taking money from oil industry to attack nuclear power [environmen...ogress.org]...
Sierra Club
Has received $136 million from interests that would benefit from the closure of nuclear plants
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Has received at least $70 million from oil and gas interests that would benefit from the closure of nuclear plants
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Has received at least $60 million from oil, gas, and renewables investors who would benefit from EDF's a
Not just big tech... (Score:3)
And of course... (Score:3)
Cue social media and algorithm machines suddenly being pro-nuclear.
Most people don't realize how easily they are to influence, and how their opinions are really the ones carried by their rich overlords. Our rich overlords want nuclear? Watch as suddenly everyone will become pro-nuclear. The sponsored research about how nuclear is good for the environment, the economists talking about the potential savings... Our lives will improve so much! The rich billionaires know what's best, always have, always will.
And in case you come after me, I have always been in favor in nuclear energy, I am just tired of how easily the rich dictate what opinion is the proper one to have.
Re: And of course... (Score:3)
They are, after all, the ones who sold the idea of organic being good to the unwashed masses despite how incredibly wasteful it is. Food was getting too cheap. Food with higher profit margins is better for you. Just slap meaningless words like "superfood" and "natural" on it and they'll literally eat it up.
Don't worry, their stooges like drinkypoo will come over with fresh from the farm propaganda like falsely claiming that regenerative agriculture is exclusive to organic superfoods. He'll then talk about h
Re: (Score:2)
If the outcome is truck-portable, inexpensively produced stable nuclear power production, it's worth the spin. The technology exists to make nuclear power clean, safe, and inexpensive but only at scale. Regulations have been holding back progress for decades.
As two-faced as a quarter. (Score:3)
Tech Bros spent the past 30 years all-in for "green energy."
Suddenly they need much much more, and fast -- to fuel their new money factory, AI -- so now they're cozying up to their prior enemy.
The duplicity is stunning, and revealing of their character.
I hope they energy sector remembers the absolute hatchet jobs tech bros like Gates and others did on the energy industry, and tells Silly-con Valley to go fuck itself.
Bubble pops in 3...2...1...0.5... (Score:1)
Don't worry, there will be an AI bubble poppage soon that will pause AI server farm building for about 20 years until they figure out how to make it profitable. (It won't go away, but overcapacity will take a while to adjust.) So we got about 20 more years until the Apocalypse Machines are cranked back up.
Roughly 3/4 of investment-inducing "breakthroughs" have a bubble hiccup before they are forced to be efficient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, my karma is still in the dumpster from when I flamed out on some awful people 10 years ago, but I'm gonna go right back in the trash by posting some sincerity.
Nuclear is green energy, by virtually any measurable standard(besides a vague sense of how "natural" it is). By amount of radiation put into the environment, it's clean. By CO2 generated, it's very clean. By smog and soot, it's incredibly clean. What it isn't is cheap, but as long as that money is coming from easily duped AI hype investors any
Re:As two-faced as a quarter. (Score:5, Informative)
Errr no, that's revisionist. Tech Bros are still all in for green energy (not for 30 years though, largely no one gave a fuck about this even 20 years ago), if they weren't they wouldn't be inking deals with nuclear plants, they'd be in for cheaper power.
And Tech Bros have largely been proponents of nuclear energy. The only thing which has changed now is that there's enough money to be made to buy more expensive power from nuclear plants that have already been built and are standing idle because they aren't viable without a customer willing to pay a premium.
I hope they energy sector remembers the absolute hatchet jobs tech bros like Gates and others did on the energy industry, and tells Silly-con Valley to go fuck itself.
What the actual fuck are you talking about. Bill Gates literally funded a nuclear power startup (Terrapower) just shy of 20 years ago, when not only very few people were giving any fucks about CO2 emissions, but when the nuclear industry was still big-bad-number-1 in the energy sector even before people were talking about shutting down coal.
Re: (Score:2)
they wouldn't be inking deals with nuclear plants, they'd be in for cheaper power.
Nuclear power IS cheaper energy, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Perhaps not at the market rate due to the prohibitive regulations and moratorium against modernization, but they're not going to be consuming market rate energy.
Re: (Score:1)
Tech Bros spent the past 30 years all-in for "green energy."
Suddenly they need much much more, and fast -- to fuel their new money factory, AI -- so now they're cozying up to their prior enemy.
The duplicity is stunning, and revealing of their character.
I hope they energy sector remembers the absolute hatchet jobs tech bros like Gates and others did on the energy industry, and tells Silly-con Valley to go fuck itself.
It's definitely ironic.
I mean, welcome aboard, but ... some of us knew we'd need nuclear. You know, those of us that the tech overlords and their disciples have been calling crazy and stupid for decades.
AI zombie apocalypse almost given (Score:3)
There's nothing that gives me more nightmares than Larry Ellison, Zuckerberg, or Musk owning a nuke plant.
Re: (Score:1)
Eye mate!
What if each one owns one?
Or two even?
Or more?
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:1)
We need nuclear energy if we want to mitigate climate change. The tech companies have enough capital and political influence to get new nuclear built.
If we do not pursue nuclear we will have a situation such as Germany. They spent 700 billion euros on renewables and failed to deep decarbonize their grid.
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear is a good way of spending lots of money while not having any positive impact on carbon emissions for 2 decades. It is literally how you get to your incorrect view of the Germany situation: spend lots of money and achieve nothing.
They spent 700 billion euros on renewables and failed to deep decarbonize their grid.
Only a fraction of the 700 billion euros was spent on the grid. The 700 billion euro figure is the sum total of all green energy programs spent over the past 2 decades, this includes building quite a few gas plants and investing in new gas pipelines among other things.
As for
Re: (Score:2)
Germans oppose nuclear energy because they still believe hitlers propaganda about nuclear science being Jewish science.
And 400 g CO2 per kWh is failing!
Always the same. (Score:2)
Short term gains (well, not that short, but relatively speaking..)
Are these companies going to shell out for long-term nuclear waste storage, decommissioning and clean-up, and if there's any sort of accident?
They should be tied into that.
But nope.
Always on us. More corporate welfare coming down the pipe. They reap the benefits, and we clean up after them, on our own dime.
And for the people saying 'we need nuclear', this isn't for most of us, this is for them.
Re: (Score:1)
Long-term nuclear waste storage is such a bullshit excuse to oppose nuclear energy. Guess what DF, used fuel (aka nuclear waste from nuclear power plants) has a world wide kill county of zero. Zero! Meanwhile the waste from fossil fuels and biofuels kill 8.7 million a year.
Also decommissioning/cleanup costs are included in the price. As for accidents all NPP's pay into a government ran insurance fund that has never been tapped(since nuclear has been historically safe). There is almost 100 billion in
Re: (Score:1)
Are you counting the toxic waste required for your precious solar [americanexperiment.org] — despite its anemic output?
Or the lithium [institutef...search.org] needed for those massive batteries required to store the solar-generated energy on cloudy days?
Sure, commie, corporations are the root of all evil. Communal-owned power-stations, with energy generated by voluntee
Re: Always the same. (Score:2)
Well, at least in the US, yes, nuke plant operators have been on the hook for containment, clean up, etc. It's up to We the People to hold them to that by ensuring proper regulations and enforcement.
We'd have a nice long-term storage facility if the idiot NIMBYs in Nevada hadn't somehow successfully shit on Yucca Mountain. Maybe we can get that unfucked.
Limited Liability (Score:2)
No, nuclear operators are not generally responsible for those when they are part of the regulated grid. They are guaranteed a return on their investment and their regulated rates include those costs. So ratepayers are also going to be responsible for any additional costs.Which makes it a very expensive power source.
Of course Microsoft is not part of a regulated market. So if there is a three mile island type incident, three mile island's owners will be responsible for the cost. They will likely go bankrupt
Some absolute figures (Score:3, Insightful)
As of 2022 American nuclear power stations produced 772 TWh [world-nuclear.org], or about 19%, despite a small drop since 1990-ies [statista.com].
Tripling that would be quite impressive indeed...