No, that’s only because the US has constructed barriers to make it cost more and take longer, to protect conventional dirty energy. Those barriers do not need to be as large. A new reactor being built would take several years, and they don’t want to wait for that. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be profitable, although again the barriers may make it unprofitable or at least a riskier investment.
Comment on Microsoft inks deal to restart Three Mile Island nuclear reactor to fuel its voracious AI ambitions
TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 1 week agoThe fact that they want to buy an old nuclear reactor instead of building a new one should be all you need to know to realise that it’s not financially viable.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
rainynight65@feddit.org 5 days ago
Three Mile Island is the epitome of
conventional dirty energy
Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
How so? It’s easy to say things so bold, but I’d like to hear your reasoning.
rainynight65@feddit.org 5 days ago
Nuclear falls under ‘conventional’ - the PWR design of TMI is one of the oldest and most common types of nuclear reactor. It’s just another way of creating steam to drive a turbine which then generates electricity.
Nuclear is also anything but clean. People love to call nuclear ‘clean’ because its low in emissions, but that’s ignoring the requirement for either safe storage of radioactive material or reprocessing thereof, as well as the emission of radioactivity in the water cycled through the reactor.
And009@reddthat.com 6 days ago
I see this as a good thing because they’ll invest more on making energy efficient. That’s something bound to trickle down and help poorer regions unless they die off first.
eskimofry@lemm.ee 6 days ago
It’s not quite equivalent right? Using an existing plant is cheaper and faster than building a new one?
Its like saying a datacenter is not financially viable only because top brass decided to use a perfectly good existing one.