6 ms·

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, w

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...
      - Eisenstein 2y ago
        > American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14. Lots of projects get announced, they aren't meant to be promises. > 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. So there are three operational reactors and another one almost ready. I'm surprised we got that after Fukushima. > Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector. So we should not invest in anything else? > Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive. This is a terrible analogy. > 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. People who have been advocating for more nuclear power should stop because it is a conservative issue now?
signatoremo 2y ago
The logic is pretty straightforward I’m not sure what your complaint is. They don’t need the power now, but they calculate that they’d need much more power in the future than non nuclear ways of power generation would be able to give them in the same timeframe. The US is already adding record amount of solar and wind power to replace coal and natural gas plants. What makes you believe Microsoft can just buy more renewable energies? Did you privy to the terms and conditions of the PPA? The alternative to Three Miles Island restart would be to add natural gas plants, or to buy renewable energy at higher price. I’m sure they have plan B.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
yunohn 2y ago
> Instead of paying to buy wind and solar plants Have you considered googling and checking your assumptions? May help clear up the cynical misunderstandings you appear to have. If you had, you would’ve read that both Microsoft and Google invest heavily into wind and solar, and that Google is the largest corporate purchaser of renewables in the world. I’m not advocating for these companies, just trying to show that tech is one of the few industries that does actually care and invest into clean energy. Some sources: - https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-2024-environmental-report.pdf https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-2024-e... - https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/googles-largest-wind-investment-to-date-targets-clean-cloud-products https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/googles-largest-wind-inve... - https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/20/google-says-its-energy-deals-will-lead-to-2bn-wind-and-solar-investment https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/20/google-sa... - https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147153/microsoft-ai-data-center-record-renewable-energy-purchase https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147153/microsoft-ai-data...
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  > Have you considered googling and checking your assumptions? May help clear up the cynical misunderstandings you appear to have. I don't have any such misunderstanding. Perhaps consider seeing my original comment which links to an article describing Google building out solar and wind farms for its data centres. My cynicism, which I argue is well founded, is based around tech companies signing such agreements with nuclear companies, especially when it involves doings things that have never been done before (restarting reactors and building economical SMRs, see Nuscale...). All these agreements are likely to amount to nothing more than positive PR, greenwashing, or predatory delay. Yes, they also build out solar and wind, but their nuclear PPAs are given equal standing with projects which actually are likely to be built; so instead of having to build more solar and wind today for more real money, they can promise to buy nuclear tomorrow for no cost today.
  - yunohn 2y ago
    Not one of your comments amidst this sprawling thread has a single positive fact in it. You’re blindly arguing “nuclear bad” and claiming that nuclear PPAs amount to nothing based on zero evidence? The ones we’re all discussing are the first of their kind… Anyways, it’s been a bore, cheers!

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...
    - Eisenstein 2y ago
      > American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14. Lots of projects get announced, they aren't meant to be promises. > 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. So there are three operational reactors and another one almost ready. I'm surprised we got that after Fukushima. > Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector. So we should not invest in anything else? > Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive. This is a terrible analogy. > 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. People who have been advocating for more nuclear power should stop because it is a conservative issue now?

signatoremo 2y ago

The logic is pretty straightforward I’m not sure what your complaint is. They don’t need the power now, but they calculate that they’d need much more power in the future than non nuclear ways of power generation would be able to give them in the same timeframe. The US is already adding record amount of solar and wind power to replace coal and natural gas plants. What makes you believe Microsoft can just buy more renewable energies? Did you privy to the terms and conditions of the PPA? The alternative to Three Miles Island restart would be to add natural gas plants, or to buy renewable energy at higher price. I’m sure they have plan B.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

yunohn 2y ago

> Instead of paying to buy wind and solar plants Have you considered googling and checking your assumptions? May help clear up the cynical misunderstandings you appear to have. If you had, you would’ve read that both Microsoft and Google invest heavily into wind and solar, and that Google is the largest corporate purchaser of renewables in the world. I’m not advocating for these companies, just trying to show that tech is one of the few industries that does actually care and invest into clean energy. Some sources: - https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-2024-environmental-report.pdf https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-2024-e... - https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/googles-largest-wind-investment-to-date-targets-clean-cloud-products https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/googles-largest-wind-inve... - https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/20/google-says-its-energy-deals-will-lead-to-2bn-wind-and-solar-investment https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/20/google-sa... - https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147153/microsoft-ai-data-center-record-renewable-energy-purchase https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147153/microsoft-ai-data...

_aavaa_ 2y ago
> Have you considered googling and checking your assumptions? May help clear up the cynical misunderstandings you appear to have. I don't have any such misunderstanding. Perhaps consider seeing my original comment which links to an article describing Google building out solar and wind farms for its data centres. My cynicism, which I argue is well founded, is based around tech companies signing such agreements with nuclear companies, especially when it involves doings things that have never been done before (restarting reactors and building economical SMRs, see Nuscale...). All these agreements are likely to amount to nothing more than positive PR, greenwashing, or predatory delay. Yes, they also build out solar and wind, but their nuclear PPAs are given equal standing with projects which actually are likely to be built; so instead of having to build more solar and wind today for more real money, they can promise to buy nuclear tomorrow for no cost today.
- yunohn 2y ago
  Not one of your comments amidst this sprawling thread has a single positive fact in it. You’re blindly arguing “nuclear bad” and claiming that nuclear PPAs amount to nothing based on zero evidence? The ones we’re all discussing are the first of their kind… Anyways, it’s been a bore, cheers!