That argument presupposes that the reactor would otherwise be brought back into operation, which I don’t think is necessarily the case.
Comment on Microsoft inks deal to restart Three Mile Island nuclear reactor to fuel its voracious AI ambitions
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week agowe could use that extra energy to offset a bunch of existing carbon emissions now. This is still waste. If it’s going to be started up again, and its energy used for something useless, it’s waste.
echodot@feddit.uk 1 week ago
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Is it going to be started up again?
If M$ doesn’t invest into this for their own purposes, is it still going to be started up? Or is your position that M$ should be investing in a nuclear power plant for the good of the world?
Because while I can agree with the idea, we all know that would never happen. So if it was never going to be started up again, we are at 0 gain or loss no matter what they do with it.
And that’s ignoring the fact that they are apparently intending on using that energy anyway.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week ago
it would be a missed opportunity in the sense of “if they can allow it to be turned it back on to waste its power on this dead-end tech, why couldn’t it have been allowed to operate again (earlier) for reasons we actually need?”
I’m not putting the blame on microsoft here, even thouh it might seem that way. But it’s not microsoft who need to give the go-ahead for this to happen
Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
It operated for a long time profitably. It ceased operations in 2019 because it became unprofitable, largely because Methane undercut it. Methane should cost a lot more, but they don’t have to pay for negative externalities. Nuclear has to contain all of its waste, and handle it carefully.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
as opposed to just spewing it out in the air? (carbon 14 is a thing, those things emit a lot more radioactivity to the environment)
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
If there were plans for it to be used, then I’m with you. But if I’m being honest, I’d put money on the original plan consisting of letting it sit there for decades to come without being used.
And “paying out the ass” is what they will likely be doing, just to the private corpos that own the plant. It’s not government run, the money would never circle back to taxpayers beyond normal taxation.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
that’s what I’m complaining about. If there can be plans now, why was the original plan just “let it rot”?
kent_eh@lemmy.ca 6 days ago
If it also shifts their current load off the existing grid, that might be beneficial.
peopleproblems@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Microsoft would do it with or without the power plant. Make no mistake about that.
The same argument could be said if they made a 1GW solar farm, or any other form of power generation. Unless you have a way to legislatively prevent Microsoft from producing their own energy or prevent acquisition of decommissioned plants, I don’t see how you can prevent waste.