Microsoft inks deal to restart Three Mile Island nuclear reactor to fuel its voracious AI ambitions

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨irreticent@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/microsoft-inks-deal-to-restart-three-mile-island-nuclear-reactor-to-fuel-its-voracious-ai-ambitions

Modern AI data centers consume enormous amounts of power, and it looks like they will get even more power-hungry in the coming years as companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and OpenAI strive towards artificial general intelligence (AGI). Oracle has already outlined plans to use nuclear power plants for its 1-gigawatt datacenters. It looks like Microsoft plans to do the same as it just inked a deal to restart a nuclear power plant to feed its data centers, reports Bloomberg.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

Eximius@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Lol. I just love it how so many people complain that Nuclear doesnt make financial sense, and then the most financially motivated companies just actually figure out that using a nuclear reactor completely privately is best.

Fuck sake, world.

source
- datendefekt@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Microsoft jumped fully on the AI hype bandwagon with their partnership in OpenAI and their strategy of forcing GenAI down our throats. Instead of realizing that GenAI is not much more than a novel parlor trick that can’t really solve problems, they are now fully committing.
  
  Microsoft invested $1 billion in OpenAI, and reactivating 3 Mile Island is estimated at $1.6 billion. And any return on this investments are not guaranteed. Generally, AI is failing to live up to its promises and there is hardly any GenAI use case that actually makes money.
  
  This actually has the potential of greatly damaging Microsoft, so I wouldn’t say all their decisions are financially rational and sound.
  
  source
  - billiam0202@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    On the other hand, if they ever admit the whole genAI thing doesn’t work, they could just sell the electricity produced by the plant.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - the_crotch@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    My org’s Microsoft reps gave a demo of their upcoming copilot 365 stuff. It can summarize an email chain, use the transcript of a teams meeting to write a report, generate a PowerPoint of the key parts of that report, and write python code that generates charts and whatnot in excel. Assuming it works as advertised, this is going to be really big in offices. All of that would save a ton of time.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Passerby6497@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    -> View More Comments
- ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Nuclear safety and penny-pinchers don’t make good bedfellows.
  
  source
  - homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    
    Nuclear safety and ~~penny-pinchers~~ capitalism don’t make good bedfellows.
    
    ftfy. Possibly ironically, nuclear safety and communism (or totalitarianism) don’t work either. It’s odd, innit.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Honestly it seems crazy that companies that are so focused on short-term profits in 2024 would be able to make nuclear work.
  
  source
  - krashmo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Every once in a while they get faced with a line on a chart somewhere so unbelievably vertical that they have no choice but to look beyond next quarter. Power consumption going 10x in 2 years is one of those times.
    
    source
- NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Have they solved the disposal questions?
  
  source
  - SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Mostly, yes. Use breeder reactors to turn long term radioactive waste to sort term radioactive waste, store for short time and done. The downside: it’s more expensive to move and process the stuff so nobody wants to do that.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - datendefekt@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Like most things with environmental impact, we just let later generations deal with it. Somehow.
    
    source
  - peopleproblems@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Relatively yes. There are disposal sites under construction that are in highly stable and environmentally safe locations. One good thing right now is that radioactive waste is temporarily easily stored. Transport of waste is an issue still, but far less of a problem than transporting oil and oil products.
    
    source
  - Hiko0@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Next question would be:
    
    Who pays for disposal and dismantling old nuclear power plants? Might also be relevant for @Eximius@lemmy.world claim. I guess it‘ll be the tax payer. And then we might have a different answer to the question of financial sense.
    
    Privatizing gains and collectivizing costs still seems to be en vogue.
    
    source
- GamingChairModel@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  I’m firmly in the “building new nuclear doesn’t make financial sense” camp, but I do think that extending the life of any existing nuclear plant does. Restarting a previously operational nuclear plant lies somewhere in between.
  
  source
  - grudan@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    I think when you start looking at how expensive other forms of green energy are (like wind) long term, nuclear looks really good. Short term, yeah it’s expensive, but we need long term solutions.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  It has been operated privately for a long time, unit 1 (this one) being operated by constellation energy. It stopped in 2019 because Methane had undercut it, and MS has now made an agreement to buy 100% of unit 1s output, but they aren’t buying the facility. Most power generation in the US is private, for better or worse (usually worse).
  
  source
- TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  The 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.
  
  source
  - eskimofry@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - And009@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.
    
    source
- polle@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Yeah for sure it is cheaper, if they only have to pay the operational costs. Not the ones of building and decomissioning the plant. Lol.
  
  source
  - IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    OP really thought they had something there.
    
    source
- rainynight65@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  It doesn’t make financial sense to build new nuclear power plants. They’re hugely expensive and such projects routinely run well over time as well as budget. If it did make sense, Microsoft would be building them, instead of reviving the site of one of the worst nuclear disasters in the US. Thing is, they want lots of power, and they want it yesterday. By the time you can build a new nuclear plant to satisfy these needs, AI will have run its course and big tech will be on to the next scam.
  
  But hey, why pay attention to such nuances?
  
  source
peopleproblems@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Personally? I don’t think this is a bad idea. The less they drain from the grid, the less they consume fossil fuel.

The reactor isn’t active right now, and they are a PWR design, and like the 1979 incident showed, they do fail safely.

So long as Microsoft pays for the operation of the plant? Seems reasonable to me if they’re going to consume an assload of energy with or without public support.

source
- vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  we 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.
  
  source
  - peopleproblems@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.
    
    source
  - echodot@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    That argument presupposes that the reactor would otherwise be brought back into operation, which I don’t think is necessarily the case.
    
    source
  - KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - kent_eh@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    If it also shifts their current load off the existing grid, that might be beneficial.
    
    source
- echodot@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  I remember I had to do the 3 mile Island incident as part of my university degree. Apparently one of the biggest problems was that the control interface was hard to understand for the human operators.
  
  So I guess if they just replaced the control system with a modern computer that would fix most of the problems. Obviously not a Windows system, otherwise we’ve just got the same issue all over again.
  
  source
  - jadedwench@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    It was the SCADA view right? A lot of SCADA software is basically running on top of windows, though you typically would never see the desktop. Ignition at least is cross platform, but that is because the server is Java and Jython. A big part of why things are running on windows is due to OPC, which was traditionally all DOM and .NET. It is basically a standard communications protocol and is what allows your HMI/SCADA to communicate with PLCs. Otherwise, you use proprietary drivers and native PLC specific protocols.
    
    SCADA programming/design is kind of an art and is usually written by an either an overworked engineer or someone who had far too much time on their hands. You basically build screens using specialized software, hook up buttons and UI elements to PLC signals, and pass some signals from the UI to the PLC. They are all heading in the Edge/iot/cloud/web based/techno-babble direction these days…
    
    Ignition, programming software is free!: inductiveautomation.com
    
    Some other random ones I have seen or used in the past: www.siemens.com/global/en/…/wincc-unified.html www.aveva.com/en/products/intouch-hmi/ www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/…/view.html
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    It continued operating for decades after the event. I’m sure they already solved that issue. It can still be improved I’m sure though.
    
    source
  - kent_eh@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    
    So I guess if they just replaced the control system with a modern computer that would fix most of the problems
    
    Introducing new Clippy for reactors.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
qarbone@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Are we eventually gonna get more fusion because billionaires are demanding more energy for their stupid projects?

Sure, knock yourselves out.

source
- BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  Are we eventually gonna get more fusion […]
  
  Either you mean fission, or the “more” could be omitted.
  
  source
- assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Most likely more fossil fuels because they’re faster and cheaper to roll out.
  
  source
- Vince@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  This is how I’m able to sleep without worrying about death, one of these billionaires has got to be funding research so they can live forever. No guarantee they’ll share but that’s at least a less dread inducing issue.
  
  source
  - lime@feddit.nu ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    yeah, larry ellison
    
    Ellison’s biographer Mark Wilson notes that Ellison sees death as “just another kind of corporate opponent he can outfox.”
    
    source
- irotsoma@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Yeah, too bad there’s no long-term storage for the waste so it will mean more and more leaks polluting land for centuries since the power companies will just go bankrupt when it’s time to do anything about it like with most forms of pollution.
  
  source
  - iopq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    The amount of waste is tiny. Coal plants cause more radiation than nuclear plants because of tiny amounts of radioactive matter in coal. You need to burn so much coal the amount of radioactivity is higher per unit of energy.
    
    Until we shut down all coal plants we shouldn’t even think about closing nuclear plants
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
TacticsConsort@yiffit.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Holy sunk cost fallacy, batman. How fucking much does it cost to operate an ENTIRE GODDAMN NUCLEAR REACTOR just to fuel a tech project that nobody wants???

source
- Korkki@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Investors want it, because they want to ride the wave towards profit. It doesn’t matter if it’s good, sustainable or not. That is what matters.
  
  source
  - pdxfed@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    A tax break for “clean energy”, “strategic investment corridor” or “self-poweting companies” to reduce the load on the grid (that a few enormous companies like MS are creating) will be written into law, if it isn’t already, and it will be a complete tax write-off or something so they get to reap any rewards and when AI hype dies down they’ll still have increased profits by reducing taxes. When you win/win by owning the system you just win.
    
    source
- Kusimulkku@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  that nobody wants
  
  lol
  
  source
- Doomsider@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  A lot of the cost is building a giant centralized nuclear facility. Once they are built it is not nearly as expensive to run them.
  
  I think this is generally a good thing. Companies should be thinking of ways to supply their power needs.
  
  Having said that, people want a good AI. The LLMs they are working on are probably not that. I am very skeptical we are anywhere close to where the hype train has taken us
  
  source
- douglasg14b@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Just because you don’t want it doesn’t mean others don’t.
  
  And just because you don’t know much about the actual tech product itself doesn’t mean that it’s as narrow as you consider it to be.
  
  There is a ton of vapid hype that everyone including myself is getting sick and tired of. I’m more than happy to recognize that. However, there are still real world problems and continued advancements being made daily.
  
  It’s not all about LLMs either, there are many other types of science being done to develop improve and augment various other flavors of artificial intelligence. This has been a pretty constant trend for at least the last 10 years, we’ve just had a recent explosion in language capabilities with the introduction of generative AI. Thus fueling the hype.
  
  source
Etterra@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I’m sure that everyone will recognize that this was a great idea in a couple of years when generative LLM AI goes the way of the NFT.

source
- Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Honestly, it probably is a great idea regardless. The plant operated for a very long time profitably. I’m sure it can again with some maintenance and upgrades. People only know three mile island for the (not so disastrous) disaster, but the rest of the plant operated for decades after without any issues.
  
  source
  - kent_eh@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    
    with some maintenance and upgrades.
    
    Hopefully we can trust these tech bros to do that properly and without using their usual “move fast and break things” approach.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    It’s one of a hell of an old nuclear plant if it’s the original three mile island one.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- douglasg14b@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Nfts were a scam from the start something that has no actual purpose utility or value being given value through hype.
  
  Generative AI is very different. In my honest opinion you have to have your head in the sand if you don’t believe that AI is only going to incrementally improve and expand in capabilities. Just like it has year over year for the last 5 to 10 years.
  
  source
  - finitebanjo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    The creators who made the LLM boom said they cannot improve it any more with the current technique due to diminishing returns.
    
    It’s worthless in its current state.
    
    Should be dying out faster imo.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - AEsheron@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    I suspect you’re right. But there really is never a good way to tell with these kinds of experimental techs. It could be a runaway chain of improvement. Or it is probably even odds that there is a visible and clear decline before it peters out, or just suddenly slams into a beick wall with no warning.
    
    source
- TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  LLMs have real uses, even if they’re being overhyped right now. Even if they do fail, though, more nuclear power is a great outcome
  
  source
- UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Once operational, the energy generated is cheap and will still be in demand
  
  source
MTK@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Ironically, the power hungriness of AI might actually do good for the environment if it normalizes nuclear energy.

Quite the twist

source
OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
This sounds like the intro to a bad post-apocalypse sci-fi movie.

source
- krashmo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  I think pre post-apocalypse is just the apocalypse. If you read the news these days that sounds like a pretty accurate description of the time we’re living in. We’re all just pretending it hasn’t started yet.
  
  source
  - homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Turns out planetary extinction without an asteroid is slow AF.
    
    source
Alpha71@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I had to do a double take to make sure this wasn’t an onion article.

source
- ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  especially since just reading the headline made me cry.
  
  source
captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I just hope this deal doesn’t involve using their AI to monitor the reactor …

source
- Womble@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  There actually has been good work on using AI to control fusion plasmas its at the point where it can keep them stable significantly better than any human or simple automated system.
  
  source
  - homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Yes in a research lab. Here we’re talking about Microsoft.
    
    Have you ever used something they made? Did it meet your standard of being “good work”? No. It’s a greedy, soulless cash grab disguised as software that infects the entire organization and disables common sense.
    
    M$ actually running a nuclear plant is a guaranteed disaster. Blue Screen of Death.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - peopleproblems@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    You know, that actually makes sense. Fusion is so energetic and probabilistic in nature, plus it’s effectively “charged fluid dynamics” and there are an impossible number of variables to handle. That’s literally the kind of shit AI is great at.
    
    Fission though? Not so much
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
JoMiran@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I am all for nuclear power, but I’d rather it be from modern reactor designs and builds, and I’d rather it not be wasted on bullshit.

source
- krashmo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Hey now that’s not fair. AI can randomize your music playlists, summarize an email, write terrible code, steal others work, and completely invade your privacy.
  
  What’s that? Oh, I guess you’re right, we could do all that stuff already.
  
  source
- IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  I’d rather it be from modern reactor designs and builds
  
  There’s a reason new nuclear loses out to renewables and storage, it’s just too expensive. Microsoft are paying to start up an existing reactor.
  
  source
TheBat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Based on their Windows updates history, this seems like a bad idea. Nuclear boogaloo let’s goooooo

source
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
There is something society could learn about itself if we spent anytime thinking honestly about how much of a dead end it is politically speaking to increase our use of nuclear power as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Yet, when big corporate interests want it for their own reasons, it is no big thing and almost no politician will speak ill of it. Even though if some kind of disaster comes about because of it they will be left holding the bag of public opinion since that industry is so heavily regulated.

source
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
So they fixed the leak?

source
- Revan343@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Different reactor. Unit 2 partially melted down, there’s no turning it back on. Unit 1 continued running after Unit 2’s failure, and was only shut down because it became economically inviable
  
  source
Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I think I saw a movie like this.

It doesn’t end well.

source