Walmart's First Nuclear Deal Shows Demand Beyond AI Data Centers (msn.com) 25
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Barron's: Walmart is signing a long-term contract to buy nuclear power for the first time ever, a promising sign that the industry's future is supported by more than just the AI data center boom. The retail giant agreed on Tuesday to buy power from a nuclear plant in Illinois owned by Constellation Energy for its operations in the area, including its stores and a high-tech warehouse in Illinois that stores and sorts perishable food.
Walmart will buy 176 megawatts of power from the plant over a 15-year period, or enough power to serve around 150,000 homes. The Walmart deal will allow Constellation to expand the capacity of the Illinois plant by 30 megawatts, a process known as an uprate, which can involve replacing older equipment and improving efficiency. Walmart, which has pledged to eliminate net carbon emissions from its U.S. operations by 2040, will also receive the environmental attributes associated with the nuclear energy, which generates electricity without carbon emissions. Further reading: Trump Admin Announces $17.5 Billion In Loans For 10 New Large Nuclear Reactors
Walmart will buy 176 megawatts of power from the plant over a 15-year period, or enough power to serve around 150,000 homes. The Walmart deal will allow Constellation to expand the capacity of the Illinois plant by 30 megawatts, a process known as an uprate, which can involve replacing older equipment and improving efficiency. Walmart, which has pledged to eliminate net carbon emissions from its U.S. operations by 2040, will also receive the environmental attributes associated with the nuclear energy, which generates electricity without carbon emissions. Further reading: Trump Admin Announces $17.5 Billion In Loans For 10 New Large Nuclear Reactors
I can't wait! (Score:2)
I can't wait to buy a SMR off-the-shelf at my local Walmart! I'm sure they will use their usual cost management techniques to get high quality products at low low Walmart prices...
What? That's not what they are doing? Oh well.
2-for-one SMRs on asle twelve with coupon! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Some places have free electricity now, thanks to renewables makes it so cheap. Australia has recently got it too. 3 hours a day of free energy for some parts.
Separation of concerns, mofo! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? If they can get a better deal using one provider or source than another, why not take it? Or do you want them to just spend their money like a drunk sailor like most Americans do?
Re: (Score:3)
Wal-Mart shouldn't know or care what power plant or fuel their electricity comes from.
What? Why not? I can choose my electricity provider from a list of available suppliers at various price points utilizing various sources. It used to cost more to choose a "green" energy company. Now the local green energy provider is the least expensive option in my area.
Not quite immaculate conception (Score:2)
"which generates electricity without carbon emissions"
Ehh... Until they do resource extraction for uranium without fossil fuels, that's not quite true.
Still better than coal and natural gas fired plants, although all three generation types still require steam turbines.
Speaking of open vs. closed loop systems... how much water does a power plant (nuclear, coal, or otherwise) consume vs. a data center, during normal operation?
Re:Not quite immaculate conception (Score:5, Interesting)
I expect plant construction (especially lots of concrete) is a much bigger emission concern than mining the fuel (a little fuel goes a long way, although it takes a fair amount of mining and refining to get that little bit of fuel). The further down the stack you go, NOTHING is absolutely carbon-neutral (solar and wind construction require raw materials too, as does all distribution no matter the generation source), but it's a matter of scale vs. return.
At this point, it's not clear that the construction emissions of big nuclear makes it a net win over its expected lifetime when compared to solar/wind. And small nuclear is still mostly vapor, and not clear that it's actually solved the scaling costs that made huge nuclear attractive in the first place. Continuing to operate the nuclear that's already been constructed for a long time probably makes it a reasonable win (of course, if we ever get a more reasonable way to deal with the waste).
As for the water... big plants are typically built directly at water sources and manage it directly, so they aren't really "consuming" it in the way datacenters do (where they just want to hook up to municipal water sources and outsource the management costs). Plants are restricted in output water temperature so as not to cause harm to animal/plant life downstream, and while some (depending on design) do evaporate a bunch, it's still right there where it came from. So I don't _think_ they have a significant impact in the way datacenters do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
1.21 gigaliters
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In summer, France often has to shut down their nuclear reactor reactors due to too little cooling water. I don't think you can use a closed loop system like in data centers. Just look at the large cooling tower of a usual nuclear power plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of them, not all as you imply.
But it is enough to make them a net importer most of the summer, and the reason they are investing big time in wind and solar.
Re: (Score:2)
France is no desert (yet). They only shut down the ones where not enough water is available. Some locations are better some are worse. My point here is, that the reactor obviously needs enough water, that some places are unsuitable for full operation in summer, not that France is unable to use nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
If we're back at the GP, warm water is probably not that usable for data centers either. It doesn't matter if the water isn't there or too hot for cooling, the point is you can't use it for cooling in your facility, if power plant, data center or other industry.
eliminate net carbon (Score:2)
Wehn promises are very specific is just means they will be gaming the system
Please use real units (Score:2)
>"Walmart will buy 176 megawatts of power from the plant over a 15-year period"
That is not a measurement of power. It is an instantaneous level. Did they mean 176 megawatt hours over 15 years? If so, that is only 32kWh per day which doesn't seem like that much.
Or did they mean a full 176 megawatts CONTINUOUSLY over 15 years? That would be 4 GWh per day, now that is a lot of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the right to 176 megawatts of capacity for a term of 15 years.
4 GWh per day. At $0.18 per kWh*, that would be $180,000 per day. That's a lot. But across all of WalMart's operations, some fraction of that is not inconceivable.
*The average retail price. I'm sure WalMart gets a volume discount.
Illinois does Nuclear right. (Score:3)
France 67.3%
Slovakia60.6%
Illinois (clearly a state, not a country; roughly 12,000 MW) 53%
No other country beside France and Slovakia generate 50% or more of its power with nuclear energy. Illinois 12,000 MW puts would put it in 9th place if it were a country. Just below Ukraine (since the war) and Canada with a fraction of both those countries populations. Illinois also allows private companies to burn coals to sell the power to other states. So their energy policy isn't perfect though.
Need as much carbon free power we can get.
Re: (Score:2)
France has been having to shut down reactors again due to the heatwave. It's happening more and more frequently.
The ones in Illinois don't have a stellar record either. Quad Cities has a coolant leak and sprayed a couple of people in the face with radioactive water, and then lied about it. Braidwood, Byron, and Dresden all had a tritium leaks. Byron also had a severe non-nulcear hydrazine mass casualty incident. Dresden is even worse, having repeatedly suffered from flaws in the design of its monitoring and
Re: (Score:2)