5 ms·

Look, I agree that nuclear is difficult, but Google and Microsoft have publicly committed to those projects you’re mentioning. I don’t understand your dismissiv

by yunohn 2y ago

Look, I agree that nuclear is difficult, but Google and Microsoft have publicly committed to those projects you’re mentioning. I don’t understand your dismissive tone that all of it is hogwash? This is one of those HN armchair comments.

dx034 2y ago
But not just for AI, for all their data center operations.
yard2010 2y ago
Google and Microsoft won't do anything that doesn't translate to money. These days are over.
- yunohn 2y ago
  Yes, that’s why they want to fund and purchase cheap nuclear energy.
portaouflop 2y ago
Microsoft also committed publicly to prioritise security. And Google says they prioritise privacy of their users above all else. I pity the fool that believes anything these corporations put out publicly. Actions matter, words are wind
- yunohn 2y ago
  I almost feel there’s a big difference between the kinds of things we’re talking about, but sure.
oblio 2y ago
> Google and Microsoft have publicly committed to those projects you’re mentioning Google and Microsoft, or their current CEOs, today? Amazon's CEO committed to their office employees having flexibility regarding their workplace, only about 2 years ago, yet here we are now, with said employees soon having the flexibility to be 5 days in the office, or quit the company. CEO promises are not worth the screen time they're provided. Have these companies signed contracts with major penalties if they back out? Those would basically be the only "close to" unbreakable bonds for them.
result2vino 2y ago
I feel like taking Google’s commitment to something seriously is one of this things that I can very uncontroversially respond to with “is this your first day?” All but the biggest Google fanboys know that Google is incredibly indecisive and will cut plans at a moment’s notice.
- yunohn 2y ago
  I come to HN for better discussions without such infantile retorts.
lopis 2y ago
Because it's all marketing and greenwashing. They are training these models today using fossil fuels. By the time those nuclear reactors are online, they will have gobbled up literally every human creation to train their models multiple times and dried up several water sources.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
_aavaa_ 2y ago
My tone is because this is a simple predatory delay strategy. Tomorrow, tomorrow, I’ll decarbonize tomorrow. Instead of paying to buy wind and solar plants, which can go up today they are signing a meaningless agreement for the future. A PPA isn’t worth the paper it’s written on if the seller can’t produce electricity at the agreed upon price by the date required. Take Three Mile Island. It was closed in 2019 since it was uneconomical to run. Since then renewables have continued getting substantially cheaper, while the reactor has been in the process of decommissioning. Instead of spending money on building wind and solar, Microsoft saw how well Vogtle went and decided that another first of it’s kind nuclear project is the best way to make it appear like they’re doing something.
- exe34 2y ago
  I've been told my entire life that it's too late for nuclear, we should have been building them 20 years ago. I think now's fine, even if it takes time. these companies already buy a ton of power from renewable sources, and it's good to diversify - nuclear is a good backup to have.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    The west tried building nuclear power 20 years ago. If it had delivered we would be building more now. It did not deliver. It is time to leave nuclear power to the past just like we have done with the steam engine. It had its heyday but better cheaper technology replaced it.
    - exe34 2y ago
      what does it mean that "the west tried" - was it a technical failure or was it that people didn't want it in their backyard? just because people hate something doesn't mean that they don't need it. children hate spinach.
      - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
        There was talk of an ongoing nuclear renaissance in the early 2000s. [1] American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14. We went ahead and started construction on 7 reactors in Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Hanhikivi to rekindle the industry. We didn't believe renewables would cut it. The end result of what we broke ground on is 3 cancelled reactors, 3 reactors which entered commercial operation in the 2020s and 1 still under construction. The rest are in different states of trouble with financing with only Hinkley Point C slowly moving forward. In the meantime renewables went from barely existing to dominating new capacity (TWh) in the energy sector. Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector. The failure of nuclear power is that it is horrifically expensive and the timelines are insane compared to the competition. Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive. Lately nuclear power has caught the imagination of conservative politicians as a method to delay the renewable disruption of the fossil industry and have an answer to climate change. When their plans, like in Australia, get presented they don’t care the slightest about nuclear power and it is only a method to prolong the life of the coal and gas assets. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_Uni...

by yunohn 2y ago

dx034 2y ago

But not just for AI, for all their data center operations.

yard2010 2y ago

Google and Microsoft won't do anything that doesn't translate to money. These days are over.

yunohn 2y ago
Yes, that’s why they want to fund and purchase cheap nuclear energy.

portaouflop 2y ago

Microsoft also committed publicly to prioritise security. And Google says they prioritise privacy of their users above all else. I pity the fool that believes anything these corporations put out publicly. Actions matter, words are wind

yunohn 2y ago
I almost feel there’s a big difference between the kinds of things we’re talking about, but sure.

oblio 2y ago

> Google and Microsoft have publicly committed to those projects you’re mentioning Google and Microsoft, or their current CEOs, today? Amazon's CEO committed to their office employees having flexibility regarding their workplace, only about 2 years ago, yet here we are now, with said employees soon having the flexibility to be 5 days in the office, or quit the company. CEO promises are not worth the screen time they're provided. Have these companies signed contracts with major penalties if they back out? Those would basically be the only "close to" unbreakable bonds for them.

result2vino 2y ago

I feel like taking Google’s commitment to something seriously is one of this things that I can very uncontroversially respond to with “is this your first day?” All but the biggest Google fanboys know that Google is incredibly indecisive and will cut plans at a moment’s notice.

yunohn 2y ago
I come to HN for better discussions without such infantile retorts.

lopis 2y ago

Because it's all marketing and greenwashing. They are training these models today using fossil fuels. By the time those nuclear reactors are online, they will have gobbled up literally every human creation to train their models multiple times and dried up several water sources.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

_aavaa_ 2y ago

My tone is because this is a simple predatory delay strategy. Tomorrow, tomorrow, I’ll decarbonize tomorrow. Instead of paying to buy wind and solar plants, which can go up today they are signing a meaningless agreement for the future. A PPA isn’t worth the paper it’s written on if the seller can’t produce electricity at the agreed upon price by the date required. Take Three Mile Island. It was closed in 2019 since it was uneconomical to run. Since then renewables have continued getting substantially cheaper, while the reactor has been in the process of decommissioning. Instead of spending money on building wind and solar, Microsoft saw how well Vogtle went and decided that another first of it’s kind nuclear project is the best way to make it appear like they’re doing something.

exe34 2y ago
I've been told my entire life that it's too late for nuclear, we should have been building them 20 years ago. I think now's fine, even if it takes time. these companies already buy a ton of power from renewable sources, and it's good to diversify - nuclear is a good backup to have.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  The west tried building nuclear power 20 years ago. If it had delivered we would be building more now. It did not deliver. It is time to leave nuclear power to the past just like we have done with the steam engine. It had its heyday but better cheaper technology replaced it.
  - exe34 2y ago
    what does it mean that "the west tried" - was it a technical failure or was it that people didn't want it in their backyard? just because people hate something doesn't mean that they don't need it. children hate spinach.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      There was talk of an ongoing nuclear renaissance in the early 2000s. [1] American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14. We went ahead and started construction on 7 reactors in Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Hanhikivi to rekindle the industry. We didn't believe renewables would cut it. The end result of what we broke ground on is 3 cancelled reactors, 3 reactors which entered commercial operation in the 2020s and 1 still under construction. The rest are in different states of trouble with financing with only Hinkley Point C slowly moving forward. In the meantime renewables went from barely existing to dominating new capacity (TWh) in the energy sector. Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector. The failure of nuclear power is that it is horrifically expensive and the timelines are insane compared to the competition. Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive. Lately nuclear power has caught the imagination of conservative politicians as a method to delay the renewable disruption of the fossil industry and have an answer to climate change. When their plans, like in Australia, get presented they don’t care the slightest about nuclear power and it is only a method to prolong the life of the coal and gas assets. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_Uni...