Futurology

Microsoft has cash reserves of $75 billion.

Microsoft - If you really want to convince us that nuclear power is part of the future, why can't you use some of your own money? Why does every single nuclear suggestion always rely on bailouts from taxpayers? Here's a thought, if you can't pay for it yourself - just pick the cheaper option that taxpayers don't have to pay for - you know renewables and grid storage? The stuff that everybody else, all over the world, is building near 99% of new electricity generation with.

America: privatized profits, socialized costs.

How much longer y'all just going to keep taking it in the ass?

So when their AI prospects don't prove as fruitful as they hope, they're not holding the liability? Sounds about Reagan.

Why doesn't the government just give the loan to Constellation to restart the reactor? What's the point of Microsoft in this.

I find it odd that Microsoft thinks that nuclear power is the cheapest way it can zero carbon its data centers

Wind and solar have been so much cheaper for so long now

Then this is no different than taxpayer funded sports stadiums...

The headline makes no sense to me and the article crosses over 2 problems in the energy transition.

Microsoft is only involved in purchasing the power, not the facility itself. In my understanding, that means that Constellation is the only party here involved in the government backed loan. Noting also that the loan itself is not malicious, nor is its use to restart the facility - if nuclear facilities should not be funded or have any special tax status then that should have been considered in the government's legislation.

The 2nd part about the power from the plant going to grid, and not to Microsoft's data centres directly is a known issue which close to all companies exploit by buying green certificates which I understand are currently done monthly in some areas. That means we do not trace that each electron provided to a user was from renewables, instead we aggregate that a company (via purchasing "green" certificates) shows that enough "green" electricity, anywhere on a connection, was produced to cover their usage for that month. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, their data centres, or this facility in general but is currently being dealt with. It will be clear in the power purchasing agreement how much power Microsoft will purchase from the facility directly and how it is delivered.

Am I missing something?

And no, I don't think nuclear power is overly helpful given the exorbitant cost, time and waste aspects

Well, who woulda thunk?

Only a week or two ago people were arguing on Lemmy that the fact Microsoft wants to use this facility shows nuclear is economically viable.

I was wondering how they could keep a straight face...