3 ms·

US regulator rejects bid to boost nuclear power to Amazon data center

23 points by WaitWaitWha 2y ago

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Why does it say "boost" in the headline? Wouldn't "redirect" be more accurate?
fred_is_fred 2y ago
Is the issue that this reduces power to the grid, specifically therefore reduces base load power since it’s nuclear? Thereby making the rest of the grid less stable? Presumably Amazon still pays for the electricity.
Dylan16807 2y ago
> In a 2-1 decision, the FERC found the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, failed to prove that the changes to the transmission agreement with Susquehanna power plant were necessary. If the standard is "necessary" then you can shoot down anything you want on a whim. No particular connection or plant is ever necessary. > “Co-location arrangements of the type presented here present an array of complicated, nuanced and multifaceted issues, which collectively could have huge ramifications for both grid reliability and consumer costs,” ...and? This is so generic, and you have even more potential for ramifications if the power has to take a less direct route. What's the actual meat of the complaint here?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
nobodyandproud 2y ago
Tech’s investments in nuclear is the single most compelling argument against solar and renewables being enough to sustain the grid.
- advisedwang 2y ago
  Are you saying that the fact that tech companies presumably run the numbers and decided to invest in nuclear is the argument? That basically amounts to saying "you don't need to see the data, just trust these guys' evaluation of the data". For most of us the compelling argument would be the underlying data and decision making that Amazon made, not the outcome of Amazon's decision alone.
  - nobodyandproud 2y ago
    I’m not sure what you’re asking here. If big tech are rational actors—and I see no reason to believe otherwise—then they must have compelling reasons to think that their future growth of AI data centers can’t be met by renewables alone. At least not cost effectively. Why? It’s not proof that renewables aren’t enough but it’s compelling enough evidence to investigate further. Finally: I also don’t know who “most of us” is; who do you believe you speak for?
    - advisedwang 2y ago
      All I'm saying is if their reasons are so good, then those reasons should be the argument itself, not that amazon decided to go that path. I'd rather hear the case, than hear that some judge heard the case in secret and trust their conclusion.Especially as what is a strong case for amazon may including things irrelevant or outright mis-aligned to the public interest though.
      - nobodyandproud 2y ago
        Wait, you're actually asking for proprietary analysis and data? If I were in a position to have that data or any inside information--and I'm not, thankfully--I certainly wouldn't provide it in Hacker News. I'm not going to pursue this argument further with you. Edit: On the off-chance you're a journalist--because I do know a few who lurk here, though they'll never admit it--then consider this a compelling line of thought and evidence to do some actual legwork.
- deleted 2y ago
adrianco 2y ago
I think there are two things that change. One is that Amazon would be controlling output scheduling of part of the the power station rather than the grid operator. The other is that this would be behind the meter for Amazon like rooftop solar, so would be accounted for differently in the annual report.
atomic128 2y ago
The clean, dense, non-intermittent power provided by nuclear reactors is extremely valuable. Unless you are located near a hydroelectric dam, there is really no substitute. The government will not allow the technology companies to "hog" existing reactors. Presumably this will force the technology companies to build their own reactors. Good. I'll end with a quote from Yann LeCun (Vice-President, Chief AI Scientist at Meta): AI datacenters will be built next to energy production sites that can produce gigawatt-scale, low-cost, low-emission electricity continuously. Basically, next to nuclear power plants. The advantage is that there is no need for expensive and wasteful long-distance distribution infrastructure. Note: Yes, solar and wind are nice and all, but they require lots of land and massive-scale energy storage systems for when there is too little sun and/or wind. Neither simple nor cheap. https://x.com/ylecun/status/1837875035270263014 https://x.com/ylecun/status/1837875035270263014

23 points by WaitWaitWha 2y ago

Why does it say "boost" in the headline? Wouldn't "redirect" be more accurate?

Is the issue that this reduces power to the grid, specifically therefore reduces base load power since it’s nuclear? Thereby making the rest of the grid less stable? Presumably Amazon still pays for the electricity.

Dylan16807 2y ago

> In a 2-1 decision, the FERC found the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, failed to prove that the changes to the transmission agreement with Susquehanna power plant were necessary. If the standard is "necessary" then you can shoot down anything you want on a whim. No particular connection or plant is ever necessary. > “Co-location arrangements of the type presented here present an array of complicated, nuanced and multifaceted issues, which collectively could have huge ramifications for both grid reliability and consumer costs,” ...and? This is so generic, and you have even more potential for ramifications if the power has to take a less direct route. What's the actual meat of the complaint here?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

nobodyandproud 2y ago

Tech’s investments in nuclear is the single most compelling argument against solar and renewables being enough to sustain the grid.

advisedwang 2y ago
Are you saying that the fact that tech companies presumably run the numbers and decided to invest in nuclear is the argument? That basically amounts to saying "you don't need to see the data, just trust these guys' evaluation of the data". For most of us the compelling argument would be the underlying data and decision making that Amazon made, not the outcome of Amazon's decision alone.
- nobodyandproud 2y ago
  I’m not sure what you’re asking here. If big tech are rational actors—and I see no reason to believe otherwise—then they must have compelling reasons to think that their future growth of AI data centers can’t be met by renewables alone. At least not cost effectively. Why? It’s not proof that renewables aren’t enough but it’s compelling enough evidence to investigate further. Finally: I also don’t know who “most of us” is; who do you believe you speak for?
  - advisedwang 2y ago
    All I'm saying is if their reasons are so good, then those reasons should be the argument itself, not that amazon decided to go that path. I'd rather hear the case, than hear that some judge heard the case in secret and trust their conclusion.Especially as what is a strong case for amazon may including things irrelevant or outright mis-aligned to the public interest though.
    - nobodyandproud 2y ago
      Wait, you're actually asking for proprietary analysis and data? If I were in a position to have that data or any inside information--and I'm not, thankfully--I certainly wouldn't provide it in Hacker News. I'm not going to pursue this argument further with you. Edit: On the off-chance you're a journalist--because I do know a few who lurk here, though they'll never admit it--then consider this a compelling line of thought and evidence to do some actual legwork.
deleted 2y ago

adrianco 2y ago

I think there are two things that change. One is that Amazon would be controlling output scheduling of part of the the power station rather than the grid operator. The other is that this would be behind the meter for Amazon like rooftop solar, so would be accounted for differently in the annual report.

atomic128 2y ago

The clean, dense, non-intermittent power provided by nuclear reactors is extremely valuable. Unless you are located near a hydroelectric dam, there is really no substitute. The government will not allow the technology companies to "hog" existing reactors. Presumably this will force the technology companies to build their own reactors. Good. I'll end with a quote from Yann LeCun (Vice-President, Chief AI Scientist at Meta): AI datacenters will be built next to energy production sites that can produce gigawatt-scale, low-cost, low-emission electricity continuously. Basically, next to nuclear power plants. The advantage is that there is no need for expensive and wasteful long-distance distribution infrastructure. Note: Yes, solar and wind are nice and all, but they require lots of land and massive-scale energy storage systems for when there is too little sun and/or wind. Neither simple nor cheap. https://x.com/ylecun/status/1837875035270263014 https://x.com/ylecun/status/1837875035270263014