Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta buys a nuclear power plant (more or less)

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: Meta buys a nuclear power plant (more or less)

#21

Post by myrmidon »

This is just PR and carbon greenwashing.

The usecase of "cloud provider buys power plant to power data center" does not exist: All current power plants are completely unsuitable as single power source for a data center because uptime/reliability is way lower than what you would need; decoupling datacenters from the grid is just a losing move, which is why no credible operator is even trying.

Are we gonna see more vertical integration between power generation/datacenters operation in the future? Maybe. But I'm very confident that we're not gonna see datacenters "leave the electrical grid" to be powered directly by nuclear plants, not now and not within 30 years either.

Re: Meta buys a nuclear power plant (more or less)

#23

Post by fastball »

Propelloni wrote: post #3

From TFA > Meta and its Big Tech peers have fallen head over heels for nuclear power lately. Meta announced earlier this year that it was soliciting proposals for new nuclear power plants that would generate between 1 and 4 gigawatts of power. Today, the company said it has received over 50 qualified submissions for sites in more than 20 states. I would like to see one of those submissions. Is Meta getting into the u…

Storing nuclear waste is a solved problem.

Re: Meta buys a nuclear power plant (more or less)

#26

Post by blitzar »

Zoethink wrote: post #16

I’m quite positive on Meta right now.They’ve been making a string of smart, forward-looking moves — open-sourcing their LLMs (which builds ecosystem mindshare), scaling AI infrastructure aggressively, and now securing nuclear energy for long-term stability. This nuclear deal isn’t just PR or “greenwashing” — it’s a serious bet on power availability, which is quickly becoming the real bottleneck in AI. Compared to som…

> long-term positions rather than chasing hype

Hows that metaverse thing that they pivoted into so hard they rebranded going?

Re: Meta buys a nuclear power plant (more or less)

#27

Post by preisschild »

myrmidon wrote: post #21

This is just PR and carbon greenwashing. The usecase of "cloud provider buys power plant to power data center" does not exist: All current power plants are completely unsuitable as single power source for a data center because uptime/reliability is way lower than what you would need; decoupling datacenters from the grid is just a losing move, which is why no credible operator is even trying. Are we gonna see more ver…

Tbf nuclear power plants have a capacity factor of more than 90%. Sure you still need a backup (like the grid), but 90% of the time not having to use the grid is a huge amount.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity

Re: Meta buys a nuclear power plant (more or less)

#28

Post by preisschild »

Propelloni wrote: post #3

From TFA > Meta and its Big Tech peers have fallen head over heels for nuclear power lately. Meta announced earlier this year that it was soliciting proposals for new nuclear power plants that would generate between 1 and 4 gigawatts of power. Today, the company said it has received over 50 qualified submissions for sites in more than 20 states. I would like to see one of those submissions. Is Meta getting into the u…

> Have they figured out how to store the waste yet?

Not the power plants problem, as per law the government is responsible for it and the utilities have to pay them. The govt is in breach of this by not opening Yucca Mountain.

For contrast, in Finland the utilies are responsible for their waste and they have Onkalo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

> How to insure the power plant

Thats what insurance pools like the "American Nuclear Insurers" are for

> How to make a dime of nuclear power without relying on massive public subsidies?

German commercial nuclear power plants for example never received ANY subsidies and they still made a lot of money.

Re: Meta buys a nuclear power plant (more or less)

#29

Post by preisschild »

chrischen wrote: post #14
kaato137 wrote: post #12

Lets see how "move fast and break things" will work in nuclear industry

Breaking things was exactly why nuclear power even got started.

That's wrong. Nuclear power plants were started after the "breaking things" part.

Re: Meta buys a nuclear power plant (more or less)

#30

Post by rollcat »

Propelloni wrote: post #3

From TFA > Meta and its Big Tech peers have fallen head over heels for nuclear power lately. Meta announced earlier this year that it was soliciting proposals for new nuclear power plants that would generate between 1 and 4 gigawatts of power. Today, the company said it has received over 50 qualified submissions for sites in more than 20 states. I would like to see one of those submissions. Is Meta getting into the u…

Just to give everyone some perspective, my guesstimated peak power usage of common household appliances: an electric stove - 5kW; a fridge - 500W; washing machine - 500W; 55" TV - 120W; a laptop - 65W; gaming PC - 600W. If you'd run all of these simultaneously, that'd be around 7kW.

So, in the most unrealistic scenario, a 1GW power plant could power 140.000 households. The grid may have to handle those kinds of peaks by using other sources of energy, but let's assume all we have is this one power plant.

Let's pretend we don't need to handle peaks. Assuming average yearly power usage of 10kWh, average power draw could be around 1.15kW. In that scenario, a 1GW plant could power 870.000 houses.

Post reply on HN