• 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