Meta's Going To Revive an Old Nuclear Power Plant (theverge.com) 47
Meta has struck a 20-year deal with energy company Constellation to keep the Clinton Clean Energy Center nuclear plant in Illinois operational, the social media giant's first nuclear power purchase agreement as it seeks clean energy sources for AI data centers. The aging facility, which was slated to close in 2017 after years of financial losses and currently operates under a state tax credit reprieve until 2027, will receive undisclosed financial support that enables a 30-megawatt capacity expansion to 1,121 MW total output.
The arrangement preserves 1,100 local jobs while generating electricity for 800,000 homes, as Meta purchases clean energy certificates to offset a portion of its growing carbon footprint driven by AI operations.
The arrangement preserves 1,100 local jobs while generating electricity for 800,000 homes, as Meta purchases clean energy certificates to offset a portion of its growing carbon footprint driven by AI operations.
Re:40 times its current output is planned? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear power sites in the USA never run at full capacity mostly due to insurance safety regulations.
They tend to run around 20%-25% so going "40%" times it's current output probably isn't much of a stretch.
Re:40 times its current output is planned? (Score:4, Informative)
You cannot run a nuclear plant efficiently at lower than full capacity, nor you can change reactor output power by a lot once it is designed. Certainly not by 25, 30, 40%
What you have here is a plan to re-certify the operation that will allow the reactor to run at slightly higher temperature/pressure to add those extra 30MW to the original 1GW.
Which you can easily check is an increase of about 3%
Re: (Score:3)
Which you can easily check is an increase of about 3%
Something Captain Kirk asked Scotty to do on numerous occasions.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be. Was it cumulative? :)
On our newer reactors we did 1% first, then another 2%, then another few nudges, for an overall increase of 4%. Multiplied by the electricity price increase it was quite significant.
Took a decade of tests and certifications.
Re: (Score:2)
Go to one hundred and five percent on the reactor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nice 'China Syndrome" reference
Re: (Score:3)
23rd century paradox, can Scotty "not have the power" if the thing he's trying to get the power to is also producing the power?
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot run a nuclear plant efficiently at lower than full capacity, nor you can change reactor output power by a lot once it is designed. Certainly not by 25, 30, 40%
What you have here is a plan to re-certify the operation that will allow the reactor to run at slightly higher temperature/pressure to add those extra 30MW to the original 1GW.
Which you can easily check is an increase of about 3%
GE Hitachi [gevernova.com]show uprates of 5-20% are possible, depending on what is done to the plant.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't show 20% increase of the reactor output, which is under discussion here.
The "up to 20% upgrade" claim is the so-called "EPU", which is replacing the parts that are non-nuclear, your steam generators, turbines and electric generators, or, per the NRC definition:
EPU - Extended Power Uprates are greater than stretch power uprates and have been approved for increases in licensed reactor power to as high as 120% OLTP. These uprates require significant modifications to major balance-of-plant equipment such as the high pressure turbines, feedwater and condensate pumps and motors, main generators, and/or transformers. In particular, nearly all EPUs require a retrofit to the high pressure turbine steam flow path to increase flow passing capability. BWR extended power uprates increase the core flow along the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) rod line in a range of core flow from just less than rated core flow to the maximum licensed core flow. This approach allows power increases up to 120% OLTP without major NSSS hardware modifications.
What's under discussion here is an increase of the reactor thermal output, and that is more or less determined by the original design. On the list on that site that would be the "stretched power upgrade" and the reactor neutron diffusio
Re: (Score:2)
WR extended power uprates increase the core flow along the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) rod line in a range of core flow from just less than rated core flow to the maximum licensed core flow. This approach allows power increases up to 120% OLTP
, which reduces core void fraction, increasing moderation and power output of the reactor. However, what matters is what you can put on the grid and i should have been clearer that a plant can uprate significantly higher than the op’s 5or so percent via a comprehensive update.
Re: (Score:2)
This is correct. I live about 30 miles from this plant. It's a single reactor BWR that has always been publicized as a 1GW plant. They're just going to milk a few extra MW out of it. The site was originally designed for two reactors, so it wouldn't shock me if one of these Big-Tech companies inquired about that too.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an "upgarde" that is usually reasonably safe. It isn't much in terms of percentage, but in terms of actual output it is the size of a medium-sized thermal plant, therefore if safe, it makes sense to do it.
The real issue, as you point out, is whether it makes sense to increase output just so that Sam Altman and his ilk get richer on hype.
IMHO it resoundingly doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
They tend to run around 20%-25%
[citation needed]
For example, the 3-reactor plant near me hit about 89% capacity for the year last year, and part of the less-than-100% was due to refueling/maintenance outages. The peak annual capacity was 96% in 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Firefly (Score:2)
There used to be a nuclear power plant in Brazil that at one time locals called The Firefly due to its operating history. Clinton Nuclear Plant is the US' closest equivalent to that. ComEd, which has a long and large if not always 100% successful of running nuclear plants, spent years resisting all pressure from the ICC and state government to take it over from its original owner and then when their new corporate parent forced the issue spent years and many careers trying to make it work.
Re: (Score:2)
Also FUD. I live near this plant and have known many employees from there. It has always operated pretty close to on-schedule. There was about a 2 year outage for upgrades sometime in the mid-2010's I think. ComEd bought it because it was profitable. The fight has primarily been with the State government over their tax status. Illinois gave huge incentives to "low-emission" power generation, but always refused to classify nuclear as low emission. Total nonsense.
Large corporation reviving an outdated nuke plant (Score:1, Flamebait)
I'm just glad we are currently in the process of gutting all those unnecessary and useless regulations and firing all those bureaucrats and replacing them with people who take loyalty tests for a specific ideology.
Because nothing bad has ever happened when countries do that.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1980s called, they want their anti-nuclear power FUD back.
As a result nuclear power is a non-starter.
You do realize you posted this in a thread about a nuclear power plant being saved from closure due to private investment, do you not? If nuclear power is a "non-starter" then we would not be reading news articles on how Meta, Google, Microsoft, and other corporations are investing in nuclear power. If public opposition to nuclear power was as high as you claim then these companies would not be willing to invest in nuclear power, at least not p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just laughed the characterization of a gigantic fucking money pit as "doesn't make enough".
The subsidy is set to sunset here in a few years. We'll see if FB plans to make the thing profitable, or just ride along on some cheap power while the public is still paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't make such a fuss, it is a win win win win situation.
Fratzenbuch gets the power for a token fee
The power company continues to get its credit
taxpayers can continue to rant
voters can blame the other party for doing everything wrong
Did I forget a win win somewhere?
Re: Large corporation reviving an outdated nuke pl (Score:1)
rsilvergun is certified 'Sharp as a Tack' i hear
Re: (Score:2)
Shadowrun (Score:2)
Nuclear fission is not profitable? (Score:1)
Stories like this should put an end to the claims that nuclear power is not profitable. It should, but I doubt it will.
I expect that large corporations like Meta, Google, and Microsoft have some experienced and intelligent lawyers, accountants, public relations, lobbyists, and so forth to figure out the best options for powering their data centers in the future. A claim I see repeated often is that nuclear power is unnecessary because wind, sun, and batteries can be deployed more quickly, at lower cost, w
Re: (Score:2)
Stories like this should put an end to the claims that nuclear power is not profitable
Nuclear power has been very profitable. All it needs is a boatload of government subsidies and ratepayers who have no alternatives but to pay whatever it takes to make it profitable.
On the one hand, (Score:3)
I'm glad that they're using power from a source that results in hugely decreased greenhouse gas emissions.
On the other hand, do we really want to be wasting green power on AI which, so far, has a better record of killing jobs and stealing IP than it has of making humans happier, safer, and better off?
I get that AI can be used to produce medical and scientific innovations. But everyone here knows that the vast majority of its resources will be devoted to less honourable endeavours. Making some human jobs obsolete, while simultaneously creating deep-fake propaganda which makes the proles less likely to revolt over their worsening lot in life, is one misuse that springs to mind.
Meta is a cancer in the body of society. Nuclear powered Meta-stasis - I guess that's fitting, in a warped kind of way...