Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Power United States

America Tries Reviving Shuttered Nuclear Plants - Partly to Help Power Data Centers (msn.com) 152

Posted by EditorDavid from the getting-a-reaction dept.
America is "making an unprecedented attempt to revive three shuttered nuclear plants to meet rising energy demand," reports the Los Angeles Times,

"Two of the plants have contracts with Big Tech companies that will pay a premium to get large amounts of carbon-free energy for data centers..." No commercial nuclear reactor is known to have resumed generating electricity after beginning the decommissioning process that takes one out of service, though some reactors have restarted after long outages. The Department of Energy is lending as much as $4.4 billion to restart the Palisades Power Plant in Michigan, the Crane Clean Energy Center on Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island and the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Iowa to restore a combined 2.25 gigawatts of electricity, which can power roughly 2 million homes and businesses. All three of the plants closed before their licenses expired, largely because the electricity they produced was considered too expensive... Restarting a reactor is a fairly quick way to get a lot of electricity, and it's cheaper than building a new, large reactor, said nuclear engineering expert Todd Allen...

Edwin Lyman, at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the taxpayer money being used should go toward addressing safety risks. For example, most U.S. plants were built between 1970 and 1990 and were designed to withstand natural disasters of that era, said Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at UCS. But climate change is making extreme weather events more frequent and severe. "It's possible, if they set the right level of safety and spend the necessary funds to meet that, they could restore these plants to operable condition," he said. "That's not happening at this point...."

NextEra Energy and Google are collaborating to restart Duane Arnold by early 2029... Microsoft has a contract with the Crane Clean Energy Center on Three Mile Island just outside Harrisburg. The plant was the site of the nation's worst commercial nuclear power accident in 1979. The accident destroyed one reactor, leaving the plant with one functioning. In 2019, Constellation Energy's then-parent company Exelon shut down the functioning reactor, saying it was losing money and that Pennsylvania lawmakers had refused to subsidize it. Constellation Energy announced in 2024 that it would spend $1.6 billion to restart the reactor under a 20-year agreement with Microsoft. It hopes to bring the plant back online in 2027...

Palisades is expected to be the first nuclear plant in the world to resume generating power after beginning the decommissioning process.

America Tries Reviving Shuttered Nuclear Plants - Partly to Help Power Data Centers More | Reply

America Tries Reviving Shuttered Nuclear Plants - Partly to Help Power Data Centers

Comments Filter:

  • Good side effect (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gilgaron ( 575091 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @07:46AM (#66382024)
    See at least this could be some good they'd be doing on accident instead of burning a bunch of natural gas for no good reason, and it'll be useful post bubble.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Hmm, from Wikipedia:

      In August 2024, Holtec secured $300 million in state funding to restart the plant. The Department of Energy is also ready to offer a $1.5 billion loan to assist in restarting operations. If operations resume, initially planned for late 2025

      Free money, delayed, and apparently they are getting in on the SMR investment scam there too.

      The money would probably be better spent elsewhere.

    • We saw in Fukushima what happens when profits are put over people. And profits are always put over people.

      So we have a bunch of nuclear reactors that were shut down because they weren't economical to run. We have a bunch of businesses that are bleeding cash like crazy and have absolutely no path to profitability. What do you think are the odds that they're going to open those plans in a way that is safe?

      There is no reason to have nuclear power. Wind and solar have been able to provide all of our ene

      • Fujishima was due to an earthquake and proximity to the sea.

        • If the CEOs listened to the engineers and built a proper break wall and had off-site generators.

          Which cost money.

          Money the CEOs wanted in their pockets.

          It doesn't matter what the safety issues are. Nuclear always has them. They cost a ton of money to mitigate. CEOs want that money and they will get it at your expense

        • Nope. It was due to their not building for the site they were on, period. There were literally stone markers telling them not to build there due to tsunami risk!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Not really. All nuclear plants in Japan have to be earthquake and tsunami proof. Most are near the sea because nuclear requires a supply of water for cooling.

          The problem at Fukushima was that the risks were known and dismissed. Too expensive to address remote possibilities.

          That's how all nuclear safety works. Look at the US. The NRC calculates the probability of a certain failure mode, and the potential damage it could do, then fudges it for political reasons, and as long as it looks unlikely enough it can

    • Re: Good side effect (Score:5, Funny)

      by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @10:24AM (#66382298) Homepage Journal

      We're going to switch our nuclear power plants to be monitored by AI to reduce staffing needs

    • Exactly, Gilgaron.
      There's not gonna be any post-bubble... when the dot-com bubble burst, did the internet go away? The only difference between pre-bubble and post-bubble was that you didn't get free AOL infinitely... you paid. And, that's what'll happen with AI... all the AI stuff you can use for free right now, is going to switch to subscriptions-only.
      And, stuff that has AI baked into it (toaster, coffee maker, smart speaker, smart TV, smart fridge, your entire car... either pay the subscription or the d

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Probably, but consumers are seeing value in things that don't require a subscription now, so there is some hope. If you look on Amazon (the UK version at least), things like doorbells and CCTV cameras that don't need a subscription prominently state that in the item title. It's a big selling point.

        • Don't worry... those won't work forever (new stuff is built to fail shortly after the warranty runs out) (now, if you have a 70's era doorbell, you're set for life as long as the power supply works).

          The list of things that don't need a subscription to use is going to keep getting smaller now that so many things are internet-connected (and, companies see how to continuously make money off you).

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      Assuming all goes well, I agree. OTOH, returning old equipment back into service after it had been written off is a little risky, don't you think?

      • It's not even the reactors as much as all the ancillary and monitoring equipment that has been sitting idle. Every sensor, pump, valve, o-ring, and miles of wiring has to be tested and signed off. Not like you add some fuel and flip the switch.

    • See at least this could be some good they'd be doing on accident instead of burning a bunch of natural gas for no good reason, and it'll be useful post bubble.

      Not a good side effect. There's nothing good about restarting ancient reactors that are
      a) past useful life,
      b) underwent part of a decommissioning process which didn't include a preservation plan for potential restart (which none of these have).
      c) went out of business because they were not viable.

      Such a project always ends in disaster, often just financial with it failing to work, but in this case it could be a very literal catastrophic disaster. These plants should be shut down regardless of any position of

      • Ah I'm not too surprised that below surface level there were reasons this wasn't a good idea. It's been weird, not all that long ago the rural areas around here were protesting against solar power, that it'd use up good farmland somehow, and now they're covered in data centers instead.

  • The Expense Is In The Shutdown And Cleanup (Score:5, Informative)

    by SlashbotAgent ( 6477336 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @07:47AM (#66382026)

    The major expense of a nuclear reactor is in decommissioning, the shutdown and cleanup at it's retirement. This process can take 20 years itself and require billions of dollars.

    Where will that decommissioning money come from? Will it be the rate payers and tax payers as has been in the past? You betcha!

    Also... If the reactor was already entering the decommissioning phase, we must assume that it was in bad shape. So now they are going to squeeze another twenty years of use out of a worn out reactor? And then go through a 20 year decommissioning process?

    • Re:The Expense Is In The Shutdown And Cleanup (Score:4, Informative)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @08:11AM (#66382084)

      You know it will ultimately come from subsidies. These companies aren't stupid and they know the current administration is completely transactional. All it takes is some crypto or a gold participation trophy. https://www.youtube.com/shorts... [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      The major expense of a nuclear reactor is in decommissioning, the shutdown and cleanup at it's retirement.

      It's a massive cost, to be sure. But recent history indicates that every nuclear plant represents on the order of $10 billion in upfront costs.

    • If the reactor was already entering the decommissioning phase, we must assume that it was in bad shape.

      I don't think that's true of all of the reactors they're looking at, some of them were just unprofitable to run before. But some of them will have deteriorated while not in use due to seismic activity etc since a lot of reactors are sited really badly.

      But the corollary is, if they were unprofitable to operate before, this AI shit must be really, really expensive...

      • Either unprofitable, or the owning power company determined that it would cost more in upkeep than the cash it brings in.

        Between the big rush to build AI datacenters and switch everyone to BEVs, power usage is going to go through the literal roof. Wind and solar work when it's windy and/or sunny... sure, build a 100MW battery pack, and hope no water ever drips on them (remember the hydrogen explosion in the battery room in The Abyss?) and none of them catch fire.
        Even if you can build enough solar and wind

        • sure, build a 100MW battery pack, and hope no water ever drips on them (remember the hydrogen explosion in the battery room in The Abyss

          I mean, I don't. Do you mean Das Boot perhaps?

          More seriously, BESS does depend on using non-shit batteries. They used garbage NCM EV batteries from LG in the Moss Landing BESS plant and that went real shit. But LFPs are reasonably safe and there's a pretty simple recipe for making a safe BESS from them, using shipping containers with airspace between them.

          Even worse... solar and wind in tornado alley... will they survive an EF3 or bigger tornado?

          This is why you don't build just one plant, you spread them around. That in turn is why renewables depend on grid improvements. Those improvements pay oth

          • sure, build a 100MW battery pack, and hope no water ever drips on them (remember the hydrogen explosion in the battery room in The Abyss

            I mean, I don't. Do you mean Das Boot perhaps?

            Me neither, not sure what movie GP was thinking of, but in the interest of going completely off the topic: I went in a post office the other day and the fire alarm panel was beeping. Went over and looked at it, as one does. It said "H2 alarm, battery room." The counter staff didn't seem to be concerned. I did my business and left promptly. Building was still there last I looked...

            Back to the point, if we're going to have data centers, I guess we could do worse than powering them with nukes. It'd be ra

            • Perhaps once the lizards implement the One World Government, we can coordinate that globally.

              I presume they're going to want all nukes, all the time, for heat rocks and hydroponic lettuce.

      • Data centers are the perfect customer for nuclear power. The data center wants to draw a relatively fixed amount of power around the clock and nuclear is great at delivering exactly that. Nuclear is less efficient if it needs to ramp up and down, especially if some other plants are given preferential treatment.

        Outside of geothermal, there's no good alternative for this kind of use case that doesn't need to rely on massive battery storage to balance out generation with demand or that doesn't need to trans

        • Outside of geothermal,

          Which is usually a boondoggle

          there's no good alternative for this kind of use case that doesn't need to rely on massive battery storage

          I'm okay with massive battery storage, and I'm OK with making AI DC customers pay for it if the grid can't survive them without it.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by HiThere ( 15173 )

            I'm not sure about the last couple of decades, but prior to that geothermal was usually really a research project. Yeah, it was expensive, but boondoggle is the wrong framing.

            OTOH, some of the recent proposals look serious. I'm not in a position to judge them, but maybe they're good. However they are still limited in the sites where they can operate. I'm not sure the ones that involve fracking are both safe and reasonable. And the closed circulation one that I've seen described is really still experim

            • I'm not sure about the last couple of decades, but prior to that geothermal was usually really a research project. Yeah, it was expensive, but boondoggle is the wrong framing.

              There's basically two kinds of geothermal, open vent and closed loop. Open vent geothermal is a boondoggle because it's toxic and unreliable. Making it more reliable involves injecting more water to make more steam, which makes it more toxic. Closed loop geothermal is low output and high cost. It would make more sense to build solar or wind.

              My guess, though, is give it another 20 years before major investment.

              The fundamental physics are unlikely to change in 20 years.

            • My guess, though, is give it another 20 years before major investment.

              I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but solar went through this phase over 20 years ago. I remember when solar and geothermal were both in the stage of "cool and proven to work, but too expensive for grid scale." I remember sitting around speculating what solar could look like if it ever got below a dollar per watt. Now we're at a stage where it's often more expensive to build the aluminium framing for solar panels than it is to put the actual photovoltaics on there! Grid scale solar is being build gl

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by HiThere ( 15173 )

                The one proposal I saw that I though looked interesting involved closed cycle in a deep well...about as deep as an oil well. Just about anywhere has hot rocks if you go that deep. The question is "Is there a good enough flow of heat for this to continue being useful?". I didn't see an answer to that, so that may still be site specific. Iceland has proven that can make it work when an active volcano is available, and it should work in Yellowstone. But that's shallow depth-site-specific. Can they get it

    • What could possibly go wrong?

  • emulating the soviet model (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dfghjk ( 711126 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @07:57AM (#66382044)

    The US is accelerating its emulation of the Soviet Union: single party authoritarian rule, political enrichment, state-controlled media, endless wars of power and territory and full-speed ahead on nuclear disaster. Is there any stone unturned on copying the bankruptcy of the USSR? Hey, but hopefully the US Chernobyl will kill Democrats, right? Elon can provide the foot soldiers to absorb lethal radiation from his company towns.

    Thanks Obama!

    • Re:emulating the soviet model (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Targon ( 17348 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @08:13AM (#66382088)

      You can't expect good things to happen when a convicted felon with ties to sex traffickers and a history of sexual assault are put in power. Add a bunch of bankrupt companies to that criminal, and yea, you get a country that is on the way down.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

        You can't expect good things to happen when a convicted felon with ties to sex traffickers and a history of sexual assault are put in power.

        That depends on how you define good. If it's helping people and making a better world, you're right. If it's hurting brown people and being allowed to marry children, then the reich wingers are getting what they want.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Targon ( 17348 )

          Higher prices due to tariffs, with no true effort to open factories in the USA(because the equipment needed for new factories have the stupid tariffs on them), then wars that were never approved by Congress, so that is considered illegal military actions, and it's not helping the world. It was TRUMP who threw out the deal with Iran during his first administration that was keeping Iran from working on nuclear weapons, and was never replaced, so all of this "we had to stop Iran" is entirely due to Trump and

  • Germany should do the same (Score:3)

    by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @08:05AM (#66382056)
    Germany should do the same, and rename the restored plants FTM1, FTM2, etc. (*)

    https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/former-managers-call-for-restart-of-german-nuclear-power-plants

    (*) Fuck Traitor Merkel

    • And why should Germany do that?

      Restarting the 4 remaining plants?

      Ordering new nuclear fuel from Russia?

      Ah, you want to see if the Germans can riot better than the French, I got it.

    • No they should not. Most of Germany's nuclear fleet was well and truly approaching (or well beyond) end of life. There were maybe 3 plants that were shutdown unreasonably. The rest should have been shutdown regardless of government policy, and should have been done so as part of a stable ongoing renewal process. Nothing lasts forever, and while Germany may not have Chernobyl'd they have seen a very steady rise in (thankfully so far) minor incidents at their nuclear facilities over the past decade, largely r

  • This is going to vastly over-run budgets (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shilly ( 142940 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @08:11AM (#66382080)

    We all know that when you re-wire a house, it costs a shit-ton more than new wiring, because you always run into unexpected issues. That exact problem is going to bite them in the ass here, too: they are going to uncover all kinds of shite they have to deal with, not least because of the radioactivity, temperatures, pressures, corrosive chemicals, etc that are inherent to nuclear power plants.

    Palisades is already blowing past its budget and timings estimates for this exact reason: 1,163 steam generator tubes with stress corrosion cracking, way more than expected, leaks in underground water pipes, valves requiring replacement, major turbine refurbishment etc.

    • People dismiss the complexity of running a steam generator even before the nuclear reactor complexity part. That's a lot of expensive shit to fix. I'm pretty sure the main turbine rotor is removed, since it could be used somewhere else instead of letting it sit there and sag out of shape. They're basically installing a new turbine into an old housing. We shifted so many jobs into finance that we can't maintain our power grid or build ships anymore. We could have at least built robots to build ships, but NOO

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shilly ( 142940 )

        Yes. And of course, a steam generator for a nuclear power plant is orders of magnitude harder to build and maintain than an “ordinary” steam generator.

        • I think you misunderstood the parent. I figured he was talking about the complexity of a steam generator compared to the steam raising component (the nuclear complexity part). The steam generator in a nuclear plant is an ordinary one, but that alone is complex, and it's incredibly difficult to restart any such facility before we talk about anything nuclear.

  • The locals are going to get hit with bills from Trump's order to keep Colorado's coal plants open, why should this be any different? https://coloradosun.com/2026/0... [coloradosun.com]

  • Wonderful (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @09:18AM (#66382186)
    1960's Nuclear reactors, Neutron impinge pipes. What could go wrong?

    There is a real problem with the Data Center model. It will always be "How much energy do we need? How much energy is available? Twice that amount." Then twice more, then to infinity, and beyond.

    Have the Tech bros considered RBMK reactors? Maybe creating a star for direct fusion power? And what happens when the present data centers need new data centers for centering datasets data?

    I'm not even fundamentally against AI. I do however feel that there is a real lack of vision. going on Remember early electronic computers? Behemoths of vacuum tubes, sucking up power, some needing constant tube replacement because with that many tubes, some will go bad in normal use.

    That is where AI, and even the Data Centers are now. And the Data Center Bros are in a mindset that people who thought ENIAC and Goliath were going to be forever computers. Maybe some time should be taken to move from the infinity based model, to getting control over it.

    Now, I could be wrong, but some idea of history and technology, and bubbles, tells me that at least my opinion is thought out, and the present paradigm is not sustainable.

  • What they think they're telling the public: "We've learned a lot, and things will be much safer now."

    What they're actually telling the public: "Move fast and break things, bitches! NOW WITH NUCLEAR POWER!"

  • I guess I missed the memo. I thought the idea was to build new nuclear facilities using modern technology, rather than try to restart old ones. I guess that idea was scrapped?

  • I've heard plenty of whining about how power costs are spiking. Now plants that were not economic are probably profitable. The market responds. No surprise there.

    Then there is my favorite graph.

    https://transmission.bpa.gov/b... [bpa.gov]

    The green line shows wind plus solar. The solar input pretty clear, it's been sunny lately, Indian summer has been wonderful. But the 3000 MW of wind power on the grid seems to be missing. Are you willing to turn the data centers off until the wind shows up? I didn't think so.

    The loca

    • It seems unlikely that wind is not represented on the graph because itâ(TM)s input value was zero. But sure, itâ(TM)s contribution varies, which variation can be planned for. Lots of cheap (technically) options. My favorite is use part of wind production to raise mass, then let gravity reclaim some of the energy.

    • Yeah 3GW are missing, what's your point? As you said, the market has changed and providing that load with coal or nuclear is no longer a smart option. If you think those are the only answers to your missing 3GW I suggest you stop reading graphs and start reading books.

  • The striking thing here (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Budenny ( 888916 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @11:46AM (#66382474)

    I have no idea whether these plans make sense. But the thing that is striking about this and similar stories is that people whose businesses depend on having reliable affordable power never are reported to be planning to install wind or solar.

    Everyone on /. believes, or at least claims to believe, that wind and solar are cheaper than fossil or nukes. Some claim a weaker version of this, that if you have a fossil powered network then you can save money by adding wind to it (because the fuel savings will pay for the extra investment).

    But when people whose businesses depend on their decisions are confronted with the problem of where to get their reliable and affordable power, the place they never turn to is wind and solar.

    In fact Elsham Park in the UK is proposing to install not only their own gas generation but also up to 650 diesel backup engines.

    It should tell everyone something about wind and solar technology viability: that its not tech which is fit for the puirpose for which it is being attempted to be used.

    But it doesn't seem like anyone is listening.

    • Yes, the people installing 1TW of solar and wind power in 2026 certainly aren't counting on these facilities to provide power. Please go find a different bridge to troll under.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Budenny ( 888916 )

        Yes, they are drawing power from the UK grid. Which has, barring subsidies and special deals, the highest prices for power in industrialized economies.

        My point is a simple one. Its that the UK current plans are not going to deliver reliable, low cost, dispatchable power on a scale to supply the increased demand that the plans for promoting heat pumps, EVs and data centers require. That given these plans it is not a sensible investment decision to embark on building energy intensive plant in the UK. The

    • Re:The striking thing here (Score:4, Informative)

      by shilly ( 142940 ) on Monday October 19, 2026 @03:02PM (#66382826)

      Maybe, just maybe, that’s because solar and wind are *system level assets*, not *single site level assets*, whereas diesel gennies are just site-level emergency backups. It’s hilarious you quote Elsham, given that it’ll be using up to 1GW of power and only 50MW will come from on-site gas. So it’ll be way more reliant on grid-supplied electricity than its own gas, and in the UK, that means it’s going to use a shit-ton more renewable electricity than on-site gas, the exact opposite of what you think is going on. And the UK has a shit ton of big companies with PPAs in place for renewables, but they don’t build all of this onsite, because that would be idiotic, and Tesco and Google and the others are not idiotic.

      Heterogeneity is literally the point of a national system design, because it delivers the cheapest and most reliable possible power, and avoids single points of failure.

  • The Department of Energy is lending as much as $4.4 billion to restart ...

    Edwin Lyman, at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the taxpayer money being used should go toward addressing safety risks.

    The U.S. Taxpayer is not funding any of this. The Federal money is in the form of a loan. Presuming that loan is repaid, the taxpayer should actually make some money back on the investment.

    Also, presumably, safety regulations must be adhered to. I know the current state of regulation is debate-able, but it's not non-existent. The argument of who will pay for decommissioning is a moot point...those funds have already been allocated, but I expect the Hyper-scalers behind these rejuvenations would pony up

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      That's is you think the load will really be repaid. Past history does not cause me to be optimistic about this, though I haven't looked into the details or how the contract will be enforced. What happens if the company (which?) declares bankruptcy? What if it spins the asset/obligation off into a separate company that declares bankruptcy? It's happened before.

      • All good questions. Get back to me when you've "looked into the details." Until then, I believe the U.S. is desperately short of electrical supply and should be doing things to remedy that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          How the **** am I supposed to look into the details of how the contract will be enforced?? I can look an see prior contracts that were evaded by one means or another, several involving nuclear power plants, but that doesn't say about this one. But I would STRONGLY prefer supporting something with a lower down-side, like solar + wind plus some storage mechanism.

          • You prefer solar+wind to nuclear. Fair, that's you prerogative. Just say that then, instead of baselessly implying that the finances are somehow fraudulent.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shilly ( 142940 )

      Why would you give this the benefit of the doubt? I can think of two reasons: malice, ie we should not give you the benefit of the doubt ie you’re doing this to push a narrative you know to be bullshit, or incompetence, ie it has not occurred to you to check the details of the loans. Hint: the interest being charged bears absolutely no resemblance to a commercial loan. The taxpayer is losing money even if the loan is repaid in full with interest. The CBO calculates the economic subsidy costs for these

      • I have offered no "benefit of the doubt." I stated the normal terms and results of a loan. Full stop. If you are aware of documented shortcomings of the agreement, by all means please link them here.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shilly ( 142940 )

          It’s implicit in “Presuming that loan is repaid, the taxpayer should actually make some money back on the investment.”

          You could have said “Presuming that loan operates in the way that other loans offered by the Trump administration to energy companies have operated, the taxpayer is likely to do poorly”, for example. You chose to highlight a possible positive outcome, one of many possible outcomes and quite plausibly not the most likely.

          Documented shortcomings of the loans:
          https [gao.gov]

          • Your CBO link has nothing to do with DOE loans or guarantees. Irrelevant.

            The GAO document merely indicates that the DOE is not on track to make as many loans as Congress has authorized (not required.) Does not indicate the loans are bad or at risk of default.

            The energy.gov document says: "Given the LPO’s reliance on contractors and third-party advisors, we initiated this audit to determine whether the LPO had an effective framework in place for managing conflicts of interest for contractors providin

  • Start it back up and see what happens, most likely it was built during a time of over-engineering, not simply cutting corners and will be restarted without issue. They need to do something to meet the energy demands and this makes the most sense

  • The data center operators pay for the maintenance and disposal costs instead of the general rate payers

  • Probably a bit embarrassing to try to re-open the older (!) twin of the one that melted.

Slashdot Top Deals

Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing.

Close