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

Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 338 posts

Re: Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

#81

Post by phil21 »

jakewins wrote: post #51
atomic128 wrote: post #30

No battery farm can protect a solar/wind grid from an arbitrarily extended period of bad weather. If you have N days of battery storage and the sun doesn't shine for N+1 days, you're in trouble. Nuclear fission is the answer. Today there are 440 nuclear reactors operating in 32 countries. Nuclear fission power plants are expensive to build but once built the plant can last 50 years (maybe 80 years, maybe more) and th…

> No battery farm can protect a solar/wind grid from an arbitrarily extended period of bad weather. I don’t understand why wind solar is subject to absolutes devoid of probability - “what if the sun and wind stop simultaneously for 2 months?” We know the probability that the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing for N days, we can calculate it from historical data. You can absolutely build solar+wind+storage s…

> We know the probability that the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing for N days, we can calculate it from historical data.

Exactly. And everyone is putting their heads in the sand over this calculation.

Seasonal energy storage is simply not a problem we have even begun to solve yet. We know the numbers, we're just not talking about them.

Re: Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

#82

Post by pjc50 »

closewith wrote: post #61
jakewins wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No battery farm can protect a solar/wind grid from an arbitrarily extended period of bad weather. I don’t understand why wind solar is subject to absolutes devoid of probability - “what if the sun and wind stop simultaneously for 2 months?” We know the probability that the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing for N days, we can calculate it from historical data. You can absolutely build solar+wind+storage s…

> You can absolutely build solar+wind+storage systems that deliver 24/7/365 energy with many nines SLAs, on the real earth with real statistics on weather. Once you start adding nines, nuclear starts to be become attractive again. Hence these deals.

> Once you start adding nines, nuclear starts to be become attractive again.

Only if you ignore reliability issues with nuclear, such as France having to take a lot of reactors offline at the same time to check for cracks. The comparison has to be fair.

Re: Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

#83

Post by nickpp »

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #74
akamaka wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you didn’t mention is the effect that renewables have on the cost of nuclear power. When you get plentiful and nearly free solar energy at certain times of the year, the utilization of your nuclear power plant will drop. Because nuclear power has high up front costs, its economics are increasingly eroded as more renewables and batteries are added to the grid. You’re totally correct that renewables and batteries…

And thank-you for making the point that utilities should be socialized and not a profit center. EVERYBODY deserves clean water, electricity, housing and food.

Without profit there is no reason anybody will provide those. Countries that tried socializing food - starved.

Capitalism is the only one that brought plenty - because there is an incentive to do so.

Re: Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

#84

Post by greenthrow »

V__ wrote: post #65

> Constellation, which plans to spend about $1.6 billion to restart the plant, is awaiting permits and expects the facility to come online by 2028 [and] would provide Microsoft with 835 megawatts of energy. I don't quite understand how this makes sense financially for Microsoft. A 1 GW offshore wind farm costs about 1 billion [1]. The Gemini Solar + Battery Storage Project in Nevada is about 1.1 billion (690 MW + 380…

It makes no sense. Bill Gates is a huge nuclear proponent for bad reasons and I'm sure somehow this is related, wherher it's just that Microsoft decision makers have read his bad takes or because he actually pushed for this terrible idea.

Re: Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

#85

Post by freeqaz »

V__ wrote: post #65

> Constellation, which plans to spend about $1.6 billion to restart the plant, is awaiting permits and expects the facility to come online by 2028 [and] would provide Microsoft with 835 megawatts of energy. I don't quite understand how this makes sense financially for Microsoft. A 1 GW offshore wind farm costs about 1 billion [1]. The Gemini Solar + Battery Storage Project in Nevada is about 1.1 billion (690 MW + 380…

Maybe the lead time is faster because refurbishing a plant is easier than building one from scratch? Just speculating but that comes to mind for me. If their need is immediate term then this could be the "throw some money at the problem to make it go away".

Also maybe good for PR?

Re: Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

#86

Post by kaliqt »

sesm wrote: post #48
jameshart wrote: post #27

> restart one of the units at the noted Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania Ah yes, the ‘noted’ Three Mile Island. I wonder why this particular plant enjoys a degree of fame? The name certainly is familiar… Seems like a rebranding might have made sense - like the UK switched Sellafield to Winscale.

Just rebrand it to Five Kilometer Island.

Hah, good one.

Re: Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

#87

Post by RandomLensman »

closewith wrote: post #61
jakewins wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No battery farm can protect a solar/wind grid from an arbitrarily extended period of bad weather. I don’t understand why wind solar is subject to absolutes devoid of probability - “what if the sun and wind stop simultaneously for 2 months?” We know the probability that the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing for N days, we can calculate it from historical data. You can absolutely build solar+wind+storage s…

> You can absolutely build solar+wind+storage systems that deliver 24/7/365 energy with many nines SLAs, on the real earth with real statistics on weather. Once you start adding nines, nuclear starts to be become attractive again. Hence these deals.

Practically, a lot of nuclear power plants can be down at the same time for maintenance etc., so you need to overbuild quite a bit there as well then

Re: Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

#88

Post by bloopernova »

jakewins wrote: post #51
atomic128 wrote: post #30

No battery farm can protect a solar/wind grid from an arbitrarily extended period of bad weather. If you have N days of battery storage and the sun doesn't shine for N+1 days, you're in trouble. Nuclear fission is the answer. Today there are 440 nuclear reactors operating in 32 countries. Nuclear fission power plants are expensive to build but once built the plant can last 50 years (maybe 80 years, maybe more) and th…

> No battery farm can protect a solar/wind grid from an arbitrarily extended period of bad weather. I don’t understand why wind solar is subject to absolutes devoid of probability - “what if the sun and wind stop simultaneously for 2 months?” We know the probability that the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing for N days, we can calculate it from historical data. You can absolutely build solar+wind+storage s…

Plus if it's not sunny/windy in one part of the country, it may well be very sunny or windy in other parts of the country. We have a whole freaking energy grid!

This isn't aimed at you, but more at the people dismissing the utility of solar and wind power.

Re: Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

#89

Post by burnte »

VoodooJuJu wrote: post #63
1970-01-01 wrote: post #14

More nuclear is a good thing. FAANG nuclear is even better, because they will be be ready and equipped to push back the insane NIMBY crowd(s) and also don't need to be worried about getting reelected.

A corporation getting its way, irrespective of the democratic will of the people, or rather, those "insane NIMBYs". Corporatocracy truly is a beautiful thing.

> A corporation getting its way, irrespective of the democratic will of the people, or rather, those "insane NIMBYs". Corporatocracy truly is a beautiful thing.

Generally a NIMBY is anti-progress and very selfish, putting themselves ahead of everyone. My dad was called to help resolve TMI during the meltdown and was part of the engineering design group the the Beaver Valley nuclear power station. People were complaining they had cows dying of radiation years before the plant was completed. NIMBYs suck.

Re: Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal

#90

Post by AdamN »

alright2565 wrote: post #35
fergonco wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are nimby crowds insane? Accidents may happen. And did happen in the past in that same place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Coal plants have killed a minimum of 500k people over the past 20 years[1]. It's not an accident in that case, it's known and planned for (or at least easily predicted enough that it should have been). But when a few hundred people, or really just 0 people[2] die in one place at one time, people lose their minds. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-pow... [2]: An inter-agency analysis conclu…

First off - plenty of people are against coal plants for health reasons in addition to the environmental reasons. There is nobody cheering coal and blocking nuclear (and please don't bring up the Germany decommissioning of nuclear plants and keeping open coal plants because it doesn't speak to what I just said). Secondly, Three Mile Island represents the path to a possible outcome. Just because disaster was averted doesn't mean that the thinking about safety shouldn't be focused on the worst case scenario instead of the one that actually happened.
Post reply on HN