10 ms·
Microsoft is looking at next-generation nuclear reactors
- baz00 3y agoPerhaps we just shouldn't do this? The environmental impact of AI is already huge and we have an uncertain energy future.
- graphe 3y agoWhy not? By that logic, humans are a much larger impact and we should depopulate them.
- sp332 3y agoThis reduces the environmental impact of AI, and they can use the power plants to power something else in the future.
- KMnO4 3y agoOr perhaps we should. Right now, an unprecedented amount of money is being raised for AI. If we can somehow turn that into green energy, that’s a big win for the planet. Those nuclear plants will be around a lot longer than the AI “gold rush”.
- cscurmudgeon 3y agoNo. We should do more like this if “we have an uncertain energy future”.
- RugnirViking 3y agoI don't understand? > The environmental impact of AI is already huge and we have an uncertain energy future. This seems like an argument FOR them doing what they're proposing.
- nuz 3y agoInnovation is the only way we'll get out of this. Sitting on our asses consuming food for no innovation and a culture of shutting down any attempt like that will only make things worse. This is a good tradeoff for the environmental cost and risks which nuclear brings (which isn't even large).
- sofixa 3y agoOn the contrary, nuclear power is the greenest energy generation source (in terms of CO2/kWh over the full lifecycle), by far. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf
- pfdietz 3y agoUnless you consider the CO2 emitted while you wait for the nuclear plant to come online and displace fossil fuels. Lifecycle emissions also assume all the parts are being made with current energy mix. In the zero fossil fuel future, where is the CO2 emission for PV coming from? Concrete production? PV uses much less concrete than nuclear per levelized unit of power.
- vlovich123 3y agoPanels don’t spring from the ether. From mining the silica and other materials that go into PV, to transporting it, refining it, transporting it again, manufacturing the panel and transporting them again across the world (since this all happens in Asia). I too am surprised by the claim that nuclear outperforms its way better and I’m a strong believer that nuclear is the only thing that can get us closer to net 0 than any other. Here’s a link comparing lifecycle co2 and it does show that nuclear is better: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...
- pfdietz 3y ago[flagged]
- vlovich123 3y agoYou realize we’re nowhere near decarbonizing the manufacturing sector and the related transportation right? Like probably not even 2075. Think diesel trucks, diesel excavators, diesel power tools, diesel boats, etc etc. You have to take the world as it is not as you’d like it to be. You also mention the time spent waiting for nuclear to come online but fail to consider that PV has consistently failed to reduce fossil fuel usage (in absolute or percentage numbers) even as the market share of it has skyrocketed. That would indicate that at best solar panels are helping offset energy growth from using fossil fuels although in practice it’s more likely that it’s been eating market share from things like biomass and other alternative fuels. Sure in some hypothetical future it might be a lot less. But notice how you complain about not factoring in the manufacturing time of a nuclear plant in terms of lifetime CO2 emissions but then conveniently ignore the time we’d need to supplant those same co2 emissions with solar + batteries? That’s a terribly bad faith argument. Also more PV installations don’t help get us to true net 0 because some manufacturing needs such high levels of heat that they collocate with power plants that generate heat (fossil fuels or nuclear). Not to mention what do you with boats? I’m pretty sure we’d need nuclear on shipping boats to get rid of that massive amount of CO2. PV and wind power plants can’t help with that either. There’s some talk about electrifying the ports but best case attached solar in ports will be used to get to net 0 while at port (but still massive emitters during transit). Lifecycle emissions today definitely matter because we have to build a realistic trajectory. And in 2050 when PVs have failed to help us achieve net 0 the argument will come up again “oh but now nuclear is too expensive / takes too long to build” etc. we should be investing in and building nuclear power aggressively not continuing to put our eggs in the perennial disappointment that is PV power plants.
- infecto 3y agoDupe from recent past. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37627697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37627697
- kypro 3y agoTitle is vague and editorialised. "Microsoft plans to power AI data centers with next-generation nuclear reactors" would be better.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ukuina 3y agoI built HackYourNews.com (free) to tackle exactly this. Here's how this story showed up there: Dehyped title: Microsoft considers nuclear energy including small modular reactors to power data centers and AI ambitions due to energy demands. Summary: Microsoft is exploring using nuclear energy to power its data centers and AI ambitions. They posted a job listing for a principal program manager to lead their nuclear energy strategy. They are specifically interested in small modular reactors, as they are supposed to be easier and cheaper to build than large traditional nuclear plants. However, small modular reactors would still face challenges like developing domestic supply chains for nuclear fuel and long-term storage of nuclear waste. Microsoft did not provide details on their nuclear plans or how they would address these issues. While nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases, there are debates around its role in addressing climate change and managing radioactive materials. Comments: Microsoft is considering using nuclear power to provide a reliable source of energy for its AI workloads. Some commenters expressed skepticism that this plan will actually be implemented, noting that similar announcements have been made in the past without follow through. Others argued that nuclear could provide a predictable energy source to match Microsoft's predictable energy needs. There was also a discussion around the relative costs of different power sources, with some claiming fossil fuels impose hidden long-term costs while nuclear has reliable long-term energy generation.
- riv991 3y agoGreat to see Microsoft deploying some of it's capital to develop SMRs, the potential seems great, but governments don't seem to have gone further than nuclear submarines.
- yeknoda 3y agoZero capital deployed
- user3939382 3y agoBreaking: Guy at big company had an idea
- Filligree 3y agoNuclear is a reasonable source of green power, but this is the fourth-or-so time I've seen a MAANG suggest they're going to use it. I'd ignore this until someone breaks ground.
- manojlds 3y ago*breaks atom
- HPsquared 3y agoMANGA? (Or would that be the alternative history version where the companies were Japanese)
- OJFord 3y agoMAANG is pretty established, because it just follows from FAANG and Facebook->Meta.
- arcticfox 3y agoI've never seen it before. And MANGA is much funnier and more memorable. Netflix seems like it should be ditched in favor of Microsoft though.
- anttiharju 3y agoAlso haven't seen it before. MAGMA would be a pretty sweet abbreviation!
- topkai22 3y agoIt’s a pretty common acronym Microsoft Apple Google Meta Amazon
- throwup238 3y agoYou have to pronounce "MAANG" like Tony Montana would.
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoIncorrect headline. More accurate would be: "Microsoft trying to hire someone to investigate nuclear power". This is the first in a series of about 100 steps before they actually build a reactor. And the overwhelming likelihood is that they study it, decide it's too risky/expensive, and shelve the project.
- DeathArrow 3y agoDoes it worth it , though? They'll cover their expenses in how many years?
- lukevi 3y agoI just recently read this very well-written article on why SMRs don't make sense (I don't recall, but I probably got the link here!). https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/30/what-drives-this-madness-on-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/30/what-drives-this-madnes... sample excerpt: To be clear, if SMRs made sense, existing nuclear power generation facilities are the place to build them. They are already at the centre of the seven overlapping layers of defence that nuclear generation sites require from the international, all supply and waste chains and the physical and electronic security of the facility itself.
- jnsaff2 3y agoIt is a maddeningly poorly written article in my opinion. Terribly long waffling about small and rather unconvincing human problems and politics. I kept hoping that he will get to actually spelling out the x, y, and z reasons why SMR's are not viable. Instead I got one of those ultra long sales pitches that has a wall of text but no argumentation. Currently I'm in a position where I don't buy any of the marketing SMR people put out before they start delivering projects and start hitting economic and reliability targets. I would have wished a conclusive and convincing argument "this is the reason why SMR makes as little sense as hydrogen" but it just was not in that article. EDIT: he points out Bent Flyvbjergs work about megaprojects. I highly recommend his latest book on delivering and failing to deliver Megaprojects[0]. [0] https://books.google.sc/books?id=95RCzwEACAAJ&q=How+Big+Things+Get+Done&redir_esc=y https://books.google.sc/books?id=95RCzwEACAAJ&q=How+Big+Thin...
- lukevi 3y agoI'll give that a read too, thanks. One of that article's points was that nuclear plants only succeeded as mega projects, because: 1) they dovetailed with weapons programs so had a huge additional funding pool, 2) big projects add thermal efficiencies that bring the cost per kwh down significantly 3) any project needs near military grade security, which doesn't doesn't suit small sites
- xattt 3y ago
- tmaly 3y agoWhat happened to those thorium small scale reactors that Bill Gates was funding research on?
- whynotmaybe 3y agoTheir last news https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-and-enec-announce-mou-to-explore-natrium-technology-deployment/ https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-and-enec-announce-mou-...
- frud 3y agoI have an idea. Why don't we give new experimental AI systems their own off-grid nuclear power plants so they can't be switched off. There's no way that could go wrong.
- baq 3y agoI can’t let you interrupt my fine-tuning run, Dave.
- ycombinatrix 3y agoColossus irl
- Arrath 3y agoEasy, just broaden the responsibilities of the SCRAM officer. Within reach of their axe you have: ]The cable for the control rods ]The power feed from the plant to the AI datacenter ]The backbone fiber connecting the DC to the wider world In event of Skynet episode, sever all three!
- tycoon666 3y agoPerhaps the AI can then figure out what to do with the nuclear wast....
- RecycledEle 3y agoNuclear waste cam be sealed in casks and dropped near the ocean subduction zone. In a few thousand years it will be sucked down into the mantle. The Russians did this before most of us were born.
- pipeline_peak 3y agoIt’s gonna be a long cold AI Nuclear Winter
- 1970-01-01 3y ago>Microsoft has also made an audacious deal to purchase electricity from a company called Helion that’s developing an even more futuristic fusion power plant. If we're going to 'solve' global warming, we really need fusion ASAP. It truly is a silver bullet for this problem and will also be the key to colonizing Mars.
- credit_guy 3y ago> If we're going to 'solve' global warming, we really need fusion ASAP. It truly is a silver bullet for this problem and will also be the key to colonizing Mars. Not at all. People have this impression that fusion produces much more energy than fission. That's not the case. Fission produces about 200 MeV per single fission event. Since the nucleus that splits is either U-235 or Pu-239, that is about 1 MeV per nucleon. Fusion produces in the range of 1 MeV to 23 MeV per even. There are numerous possible reactions, from Deuterium-Tritium to Hydrogen-Nitrogen. At most you get about 4 MeV per nucleon (for the Deuterium-Tritium and Deuterium-Helium3). In most cases you get less, even in some cases less than 1MeV per nucleon. So, at most fusion is about 4 times more efficient than fission. But in those cases when this happens, one of the reactants is something that we can't find in nature (either tritium or He3), so we need to make out of other nuclear reactions. Tritium in particular is something regularly discarded by fission reactors. The problem is that if we ever develop Deuterium-Tritium fusion, our fission reactors will not generate anything close to the needed Tritium, not by 2 orders of magnitude. This is just to dispel the illusion that if we unlock fusion, we get loads more energy than from fission. Now, it will be cleaner. It will not produce nuclear waste. But nuclear waste is not really the big issue that the anti-nuclear crowd makes it to be. The problem with fusion is this: we need two miracles to happen. We need to make fusion happen, and then we need to make it economical. With fission, we only need the second miracle.
- 1970-01-01 3y agoThe idea is if you can make one fusion generator, you can make one million, as they're safe enough to build into every city and town in the world, just like gas and coal power plants are now. The only real danger to the population will be the high voltage power lines.