Technology

59534 readers

3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

405

Microsoft inks deal to restart Three Mile Island nuclear reactor to fuel its voracious AI ambitions (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 2 months ago by irreticent@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

152 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Have they solved the disposal questions?

[–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 24 points 2 months ago

We haven't solved the "disposal" question of using fossil fuels, and those turned out (or were known along) to cause much bigger problems.

[–] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago

Like most things with environmental impact, we just let later generations deal with it. Somehow.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] uzay@infosec.pub 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How short is short-term?

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Hundred years. Big difference with the 100.000 years of the current waste.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months 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.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago

We have, but of course not to the satisfaction of anti-nuclear activists because solving it would be counter to their actual goals.

Nuclear waste is actually quite easy to deal with unless your purposes are best served by it being very difficult to deal with, in which case you make as much trouble as you can for it.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago

Uh... Yeah. The reactor was in operation until 2019 when it stopped being profitable. Disposal was never a problem.