this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
405 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
2891 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Eximius@lemmy.world 144 points 2 months ago (38 children)

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.

[–] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 46 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

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 these investments are not guaranteed. Generally, GenAI 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.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

if they ever admit the whole genAI thing doesn't work

. . . The entire multi-billion-dollar hype train goes off the cliff. All the executives that backed it look like clowns, the layoffs come back to bite them - hard - and Microsoft wont recover for a decade.

I mean . . . a boy can dream

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear safety and penny-pinchers don't make good bedfellows.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Pretty sure it has to do with how the plant is designed and operated as opposed to what economic or governmental system it happens to exist under.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Honestly it seems crazy that companies that are so focused on short-term profits in 2024 would be able to make nuclear work.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months 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.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 months 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).

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 78 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 36 points 2 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months 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.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 18 points 2 months ago

That argument presupposes that the reactor would otherwise be brought back into operation, which I don't think is necessarily the case.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 months ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 28 points 2 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] jadedwench@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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!: https://inductiveautomation.com

Some other random ones I have seen or used in the past: https://www.siemens.com/global/en/products/automation/simatic-hmi/wincc-unified.html https://www.aveva.com/en/products/intouch-hmi/ https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/products/software/factorytalk/operationsuite/view.html

[–] CLOTHESPlN@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

"is usually written by an over worked engineer"

I'm in this post and I don't like it.

But really these scada systems are rarely well defined by the time implementation happens. Often the architect has a great plan, but by the time it's passed to a manager, a non-software engineer, to the product engineer to the automation team to the contractor the end result is "X data is pushed in With Y form and we use either a,b,or c date time stamp any nobody knows"

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 months 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 45 points 2 months ago (12 children)

Are we eventually gonna get more fusion because billionaires are demanding more energy for their stupid projects?

Sure, knock yourselves out.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 months ago

Are we eventually gonna get more fusion [...]

Either you mean fission, or the "more" could be omitted.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 41 points 2 months ago (24 children)

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.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 39 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 18 points 2 months ago

They are only buying 100% of the output. The old owners are still owning and operating it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)

Once operational, the energy generated is cheap and will still be in demand

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 35 points 2 months ago (4 children)

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???

[–] Korkki@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 20 points 2 months ago

that nobody wants

lol

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MTK@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

Ironically, the power hungriness of AI might actually do good for the environment if it normalizes nuclear energy.

Quite the twist

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I had to do a double take to make sure this wasn't an onion article.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This sounds like the intro to a bad post-apocalypse sci-fi movie.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I just hope this deal doesn’t involve using their AI to monitor the reactor …

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, stick rod in / pull rod out doesn't really need deep learning to make work well :p

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

Apparently, I didn't learn that with my ex

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Based on their Windows updates history, this seems like a bad idea. Nuclear boogaloo let's goooooo

load more comments
view more: next ›