5 ms·

Microsoft hiring for “small modular reactor” strategy to power data centers

37 points by sien 3y ago

sien 3y ago
Here is the job : https://jobs.careers.microsoft.com/global/en/job/1627555/Principal-Program-Manager-Nuclear-Technology https://jobs.careers.microsoft.com/global/en/job/1627555/Pri...
acidburnNSA 3y ago
That's a great use case for small modular reactors, especially once they're actually serialized and being delivered on time/on budget. I'm glad MS is interested in helping move the needle in that direction. The first few of any model will be slightly ugly.
- kaliszad 3y ago
  No it isn't a great use case. It is a pandora's box. Mass manufacturing of nuclear devices used at sites with fewer or no top-notch experts, less stability because of the smaller volume, much more pressure on costs (because some things don't scale with the power output) and many, many more units where something can go wrong. Microsoft isn't even able to secure their Azure cloud or their products. Why do you think they will do so much better with nuclear energy? Will they automatically insure the whole region against an incident? Will they automatically pay all the damages such a case? How about the things that money cant buy such as stillborn babies, early death, mutations, the effects of extreme stress during a catastrophe? And if they contain an incident, will they pay the full clean up and permanent storage of the mess? Also, nuclear reactors tend to have a long life-time. What will happen at the end or should Microsoft as a company go out of business? I really think we need to be a lot more humble with nuclear energy. The last cost savings caused Chernobyl to be such a disaster. Even the Japanese couldn't handle the power of nature, which was to some degree foreseeable.
ReactiveJelly 3y ago
Huh. Is that economical because data centers are such dense power sinks that taking power from the grid usually means building new plants or substations anyway?
1letterunixname 3y ago
This is a nonstarter from an insurance perspective. (Ask me how I know.) For similar pricing, they could deploy renewables and MES or PHS without the risks associated with future radioactive waste transportation and storage and potential for meltdowns. Renewables already meet over 1/3 of world energy needs. It's rapidly becoming a waste of money and a political hot-button to invest in "bridge" energy sources when long-term solutions are viable here and now. It's good news that economic and ethical interests are rapidly aligning.
- havnagiggle 3y ago
  Now you've got me wondering, what kind of technical expertise do different insurance companies possess to understand risk in these niche industries? Insuring Viasat's Visasat-3 for example. How do you quote for something like that without just pulling a number out of thin air and hope it doesn't bankrupt them. Do insurers need to sign off on technical specs?
- klysm 3y ago
  is nuclear a bridge? Renewables are inconsistent and batteries probably won't be good enough
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    Then you failed to understand pumped or mechanical energy storage.
    - klysm 3y ago
      Based on my limited current understanding, pumped/mechanical storage is not going to get us to 100% solar/wind. Pumped storage is great, but we need some baseline generation
      - 1letterunixname 3y ago
        Strawman: you're conflating and confusing energy storage with generation. They're entirely different. Texas alone deployed multiple multiples of 100's MW solar generation facilities that kept the lights on during the hottest heatwave in a century. Renewables account for 1/3 of all energy produced in the world now. Decarbonization of most major centralized pollution sources is achievable within 15 years. And wherever there is a hydroelectric generation dam, there is also a "battery" that can run generators in reverse for PES, e.g., it is both generation and storage.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sargun 3y ago
So, I believe this has been under research since ~2015 at Microsoft. Bill Gates had invested in nuclear power and introduced the idea. It seems like a good idea. One problem that pops out is that even with a large, geographically distributed data center, you’re talking about ~250MW. In order to get the same level of resiliency the grid has you need to have some redundancy. That gets really complicated. If the unit fails, and you need to start a 125MW power draw from the grid. Which…isn’t practical.
- ajhurliman 3y ago
  When I was studying nuclear in 2010 Gates was employing my professor as technical advisor for standing wave reactors, so he’s been interested in nukes for a while. Modular reactors were cool theoretical ideas at the time similar to 3D printers, crazy to see how far they’ve come.
  - cinntaile 3y ago
    That's surprising considering that most modular reactors are just smaller versions of the ones we have now.
    - acchow 3y ago
      How are they different from the reactors in US Navy submarines?
    - kaliszad 3y ago
      Of course, all the ratios are wrong is you scale everything and you might not get to criticality. So it is a completely different design with different manufacturing techniques for many parts. It is like a model of an airplane also wouldn't fly without adjustments to many parts which of course changes various ratios.
      - flashback2199 3y ago
        I would have thought that SMR design would be more inspired by nuclear submarines and such which are already small, not necessarily large power stations, but admittedly I don't know anything in this area.
happytiger 3y ago
This is a truly great use case for nuclear power. Fine idea.

37 points by sien 3y ago

sien 3y ago

Here is the job : https://jobs.careers.microsoft.com/global/en/job/1627555/Principal-Program-Manager-Nuclear-Technology https://jobs.careers.microsoft.com/global/en/job/1627555/Pri...

acidburnNSA 3y ago

That's a great use case for small modular reactors, especially once they're actually serialized and being delivered on time/on budget. I'm glad MS is interested in helping move the needle in that direction. The first few of any model will be slightly ugly.

kaliszad 3y ago
No it isn't a great use case. It is a pandora's box. Mass manufacturing of nuclear devices used at sites with fewer or no top-notch experts, less stability because of the smaller volume, much more pressure on costs (because some things don't scale with the power output) and many, many more units where something can go wrong. Microsoft isn't even able to secure their Azure cloud or their products. Why do you think they will do so much better with nuclear energy? Will they automatically insure the whole region against an incident? Will they automatically pay all the damages such a case? How about the things that money cant buy such as stillborn babies, early death, mutations, the effects of extreme stress during a catastrophe? And if they contain an incident, will they pay the full clean up and permanent storage of the mess? Also, nuclear reactors tend to have a long life-time. What will happen at the end or should Microsoft as a company go out of business? I really think we need to be a lot more humble with nuclear energy. The last cost savings caused Chernobyl to be such a disaster. Even the Japanese couldn't handle the power of nature, which was to some degree foreseeable.

ReactiveJelly 3y ago

Huh. Is that economical because data centers are such dense power sinks that taking power from the grid usually means building new plants or substations anyway?

1letterunixname 3y ago

This is a nonstarter from an insurance perspective. (Ask me how I know.) For similar pricing, they could deploy renewables and MES or PHS without the risks associated with future radioactive waste transportation and storage and potential for meltdowns. Renewables already meet over 1/3 of world energy needs. It's rapidly becoming a waste of money and a political hot-button to invest in "bridge" energy sources when long-term solutions are viable here and now. It's good news that economic and ethical interests are rapidly aligning.

havnagiggle 3y ago
Now you've got me wondering, what kind of technical expertise do different insurance companies possess to understand risk in these niche industries? Insuring Viasat's Visasat-3 for example. How do you quote for something like that without just pulling a number out of thin air and hope it doesn't bankrupt them. Do insurers need to sign off on technical specs?
klysm 3y ago
is nuclear a bridge? Renewables are inconsistent and batteries probably won't be good enough
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  Then you failed to understand pumped or mechanical energy storage.
  - klysm 3y ago
    Based on my limited current understanding, pumped/mechanical storage is not going to get us to 100% solar/wind. Pumped storage is great, but we need some baseline generation
    - 1letterunixname 3y ago
      Strawman: you're conflating and confusing energy storage with generation. They're entirely different. Texas alone deployed multiple multiples of 100's MW solar generation facilities that kept the lights on during the hottest heatwave in a century. Renewables account for 1/3 of all energy produced in the world now. Decarbonization of most major centralized pollution sources is achievable within 15 years. And wherever there is a hydroelectric generation dam, there is also a "battery" that can run generators in reverse for PES, e.g., it is both generation and storage.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sargun 3y ago

So, I believe this has been under research since ~2015 at Microsoft. Bill Gates had invested in nuclear power and introduced the idea. It seems like a good idea. One problem that pops out is that even with a large, geographically distributed data center, you’re talking about ~250MW. In order to get the same level of resiliency the grid has you need to have some redundancy. That gets really complicated. If the unit fails, and you need to start a 125MW power draw from the grid. Which…isn’t practical.

ajhurliman 3y ago
When I was studying nuclear in 2010 Gates was employing my professor as technical advisor for standing wave reactors, so he’s been interested in nukes for a while. Modular reactors were cool theoretical ideas at the time similar to 3D printers, crazy to see how far they’ve come.
- cinntaile 3y ago
  That's surprising considering that most modular reactors are just smaller versions of the ones we have now.
  - acchow 3y ago
    How are they different from the reactors in US Navy submarines?
  - kaliszad 3y ago
    Of course, all the ratios are wrong is you scale everything and you might not get to criticality. So it is a completely different design with different manufacturing techniques for many parts. It is like a model of an airplane also wouldn't fly without adjustments to many parts which of course changes various ratios.
    - flashback2199 3y ago
      I would have thought that SMR design would be more inspired by nuclear submarines and such which are already small, not necessarily large power stations, but admittedly I don't know anything in this area.

happytiger 3y ago

This is a truly great use case for nuclear power. Fine idea.