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