• Greyghoster
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months 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.

    • sus@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months 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 !

      • Greyghoster
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

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

        • corbin@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months 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.

          • Greyghoster
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months 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.

            • froztbyte@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months 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

      • gerikson@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months 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.

        • maol@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months 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…