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.
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…
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 !
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.
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.
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
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.
I assume this is pr to distract from their increasing use of fossil fuels
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.
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…
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 !
I was thinking of the economics as opposed to the safety aspects. Seems an expensive option.
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.
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.
almost like it was literally in the article