• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    164 days ago

    Interesting as old nuclear plants are always said to be expensive to operate due to maintenance and old technology issues. Microsoft must really be in a bind to go for an expensive and uncertain supply.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        53 days ago

        Yeah but Three Mile Island? Seriously?

        Now it’s possible that the MSFT press release gave it a more anodyne name and the press sussed out where it was, but still.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          62 days ago

          Well, it’s a hell of a distraction!

          Augh, augh, I’m starting to sound like one of those conspiracy nuts who think Beyoncé times her album releases to distract people from what the illuminati are getting up to. Time to stop…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Advanced bayesian estimations show that the risks of a nuclear plant that is not yet operational are very low. And the chance that they will still be employed at microsoft (after the bubble pops) by 2028 is exceedingly low, reducing effective risk significantly !

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        103 days ago

        I was thinking of the economics as opposed to the safety aspects. Seems an expensive option.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 day ago

          Nuclear power has fairly predictable amortized returns. I imagine that this is worth the cost to MS over the next two decades or so; we have no idea what their current energy premium is like, and this plant doesn’t have to be as cheap as a new plant, just cheaper than the current premium.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 day ago

            If it was cheaper than the current premium, I expect that the plant would still be in operation, however as I don’t know the numbers so it must be worthwhile.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 day ago

              Constellation Energy shut down the Unit 1 reactor in 2019 — not the one that melted down in 1979, the other one — because it wasn’t economical. Inflation Reduction Act tax breaks made it viable again

              almost like it was literally in the article