8 ms·

Meta buys a nuclear power plant (more or less)

32 points by samsmithy 1y ago

h1fra 1y ago
surely having public infrastructure only working when private companies are willing to pay for it is a good idea and not a problem at all for the future
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  In many other western countries water and power infrastructure is also in part privately owned.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- fastball 1y ago
  Whose fault is that?
- zelphirkalt 1y ago
  Especially, if done by Facebook, as they have been acting so responsibly in the past, and totally will not stonewall, when any problems occur.
edam30 1y ago
Nice
Propelloni 1y ago
From TFA > Meta and its Big Tech peers have fallen head over heels for nuclear power lately. Meta announced earlier this year that it was soliciting proposals for new nuclear power plants that would generate between 1 and 4 gigawatts of power. Today, the company said it has received over 50 qualified submissions for sites in more than 20 states. I would like to see one of those submissions. Is Meta getting into the utilities business? Have they figured out how to store the waste yet? How to insure the power plant? How to make a dime of nuclear power without relying on massive public subsidies?
- jajko 1y ago
  Just look at history of their behavior in other areas for those answers. Its the same company, same people making same or similar decisions.
- maeil 1y ago
  The waste and costs will be socialized, the profits will be privatized.
  - oldpersonintx2 1y ago
    [dead]
- fastball 1y ago
  Storing nuclear waste is a solved problem.
  - Propelloni 1y ago
    How so?
    - fastball 1y ago
      https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio...
- preisschild 1y ago
  > Have they figured out how to store the waste yet? Not the power plants problem, as per law the government is responsible for it and the utilities have to pay them. The govt is in breach of this by not opening Yucca Mountain. For contrast, in Finland the utilies are responsible for their waste and they have Onkalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... > How to insure the power plant Thats what insurance pools like the "American Nuclear Insurers" are for > How to make a dime of nuclear power without relying on massive public subsidies? German commercial nuclear power plants for example never received ANY subsidies and they still made a lot of money.
ryan-c 1y ago
Move fast and irradiate things.
tmtvl 1y ago
Looking forward to the day Zuck begins each speech and interview with 'our words are backed with nuclear weapons'.
kaato137 1y ago
Lets see how "move fast and break things" will work in nuclear industry
- chrischen 1y ago
  Breaking things was exactly why nuclear power even got started.
  - chii 1y ago
    but they're breaking someone else's things, not your own.
  - preisschild 1y ago
    That's wrong. Nuclear power plants were started after the "breaking things" part.
    - hildolfr 1y ago
      Right, that's why public sentiment around nuclear was and has been so hard fought, because it had never failed in a catastrophic manner in history.
      - preisschild 1y ago
        OP clearly meant nuclear weapons, not power generation accidents.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  Fission tends to move quite fast and break a lot of things, so... I'd say they'll produce a lot of energy.
- dominicrose 1y ago
  what about don't get permission ask forgiveness?
  - 1y ago
justforfunhere 1y ago
How much would a nuclear reactor of this size cost to operate yearly?
Zoethink 1y ago
I’m quite positive on Meta right now.They’ve been making a string of smart, forward-looking moves — open-sourcing their LLMs (which builds ecosystem mindshare), scaling AI infrastructure aggressively, and now securing nuclear energy for long-term stability. This nuclear deal isn’t just PR or “greenwashing” — it’s a serious bet on power availability, which is quickly becoming the real bottleneck in AI. Compared to some of their peers, Meta seems more willing to take technically grounded, long-term positions rather than chasing hype.
- blitzar 1y ago
  > long-term positions rather than chasing hype Hows that metaverse thing that they pivoted into so hard they rebranded going?
fnands 1y ago
Luckily they don't own it, they are basically just helping guarantee its future operation. Pretty much the same for Microsoft and Three Mile Island.
myrmidon 1y ago
This is just PR and carbon greenwashing. The usecase of "cloud provider buys power plant to power data center" does not exist: All current power plants are completely unsuitable as single power source for a data center because uptime/reliability is way lower than what you would need; decoupling datacenters from the grid is just a losing move, which is why no credible operator is even trying. Are we gonna see more vertical integration between power generation/datacenters operation in the future? Maybe. But I'm very confident that we're not gonna see datacenters "leave the electrical grid" to be powered directly by nuclear plants, not now and not within 30 years either.
- preisschild 1y ago
  Tbf nuclear power plants have a capacity factor of more than 90%. Sure you still need a backup (like the grid), but 90% of the time not having to use the grid is a huge amount. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity
  - myrmidon 1y ago
    Yes, but even 90% is completely insufficient for a datacenter, and you would have to substitute power for days or weeks (during refueling/maintenance), which makes backup systems unsuitable for the task. Taking this approach would also basically lock your datacenter power use to the exact output power of the reactor, preventing you from scaling either side of the setup freely. I think looking at moves like this from a power perspective is wrong, and I strongly believe that this is just minimum effort hedging against increasing CO2 costs (both monetary and reputational), i.e. greenwashing.
- teruakohatu 1y ago
  > This is just PR and carbon greenwashing. > All current power plants are completely unsuitable as single power source for a data center I don’t think this is a fair assessment. For example, there is a data center being built in New Zealand that will be grid connected but the power will be supplied from a huge hydro dam that has to have generators shutdown if the load is not great enough. Its primarily purpose is to power an aluminium smelter and there is not enough transmission capacity to transfer all the electricity elsewhere. Another counter example is home solar. If a house is grid connected it’s still producing green energy even if it still sips gas generation at night.
voidUpdate 1y ago
I'm guessing less...
jillesvangurp 1y ago
> The social media company will buy all the “clean energy attributes” of Constellation Energy’s Clinton Clean Energy Center, a 1.1 gigawatt nuclear power plant in central Illinois, starting in June 2027. Creative bookkeeping is a thing when it comes to carbon neutrality. They are still using electrons produced with gas power. But others in a place where Meta doesn't require much power get to use nuclear power now. It's interesting that they feel like they need to spend on carbon offsets. But I don't think carbon offsets are a long term solution. The core issue for companies like Meta is that they need to get their hands on large amounts of preferably clean power. Another interesting thing here of course is that this nuclear plant is hopelessly dependent on subsidies to stay operational. That's quite common with aging nuclear plants. It's apparently a deeply unprofitable business to be in. There's no such thing as a profitable nuclear plant that doesn't get heavily subsidized. Plenty of people in the nuclear sector are getting rich but very few under their own power (pun intended).
- myrmidon 1y ago
  I think this example illustrates the biggest problem with carbon credits very clearly: Basically, Meta subsidises all the electricity consumers near that plant to take the blame for the emissions that their datacenters cause. This achieves almost nothing: Emissions stay the same, no additional clean power is generated and there is no reduction in power consumption either. The only notable result is that Meta is now "blameless" on paper. As long as you can get carbon credits cheaply from peers that don't really need/profit/care about them, the whole scheme is rather useless.
ribcage 1y ago
[dead]
Ekaros 1y ago
This make lot of sense. Buying steady production of power almost at cost. So you get that power at lower margin. Your energy consumption is pretty flat so you utilize lot of it. And then you do not need to do futures or other type of contracts with extra costs to offset your price. Matching base load with base production in this way is actually sensible move. And for maintenance periods you can just plan for and buy the power from market.

32 points by samsmithy 1y ago

surely having public infrastructure only working when private companies are willing to pay for it is a good idea and not a problem at all for the future

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
In many other western countries water and power infrastructure is also in part privately owned.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
fastball 1y ago
Whose fault is that?
zelphirkalt 1y ago
Especially, if done by Facebook, as they have been acting so responsibly in the past, and totally will not stonewall, when any problems occur.

edam30 1y ago

Nice

Propelloni 1y ago

From TFA > Meta and its Big Tech peers have fallen head over heels for nuclear power lately. Meta announced earlier this year that it was soliciting proposals for new nuclear power plants that would generate between 1 and 4 gigawatts of power. Today, the company said it has received over 50 qualified submissions for sites in more than 20 states. I would like to see one of those submissions. Is Meta getting into the utilities business? Have they figured out how to store the waste yet? How to insure the power plant? How to make a dime of nuclear power without relying on massive public subsidies?

jajko 1y ago
Just look at history of their behavior in other areas for those answers. Its the same company, same people making same or similar decisions.
maeil 1y ago
The waste and costs will be socialized, the profits will be privatized.
- oldpersonintx2 1y ago
  [dead]
fastball 1y ago
Storing nuclear waste is a solved problem.
- Propelloni 1y ago
  How so?
  - fastball 1y ago
    https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio...
preisschild 1y ago
> Have they figured out how to store the waste yet? Not the power plants problem, as per law the government is responsible for it and the utilities have to pay them. The govt is in breach of this by not opening Yucca Mountain. For contrast, in Finland the utilies are responsible for their waste and they have Onkalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... > How to insure the power plant Thats what insurance pools like the "American Nuclear Insurers" are for > How to make a dime of nuclear power without relying on massive public subsidies? German commercial nuclear power plants for example never received ANY subsidies and they still made a lot of money.

ryan-c 1y ago

Move fast and irradiate things.

tmtvl 1y ago

Looking forward to the day Zuck begins each speech and interview with 'our words are backed with nuclear weapons'.

kaato137 1y ago

Lets see how "move fast and break things" will work in nuclear industry

chrischen 1y ago
Breaking things was exactly why nuclear power even got started.
- chii 1y ago
  but they're breaking someone else's things, not your own.
- preisschild 1y ago
  That's wrong. Nuclear power plants were started after the "breaking things" part.
  - hildolfr 1y ago
    Right, that's why public sentiment around nuclear was and has been so hard fought, because it had never failed in a catastrophic manner in history.
    - preisschild 1y ago
      OP clearly meant nuclear weapons, not power generation accidents.
rkomorn 1y ago
Fission tends to move quite fast and break a lot of things, so... I'd say they'll produce a lot of energy.
dominicrose 1y ago
what about don't get permission ask forgiveness?
- 1y ago

justforfunhere 1y ago

How much would a nuclear reactor of this size cost to operate yearly?

Zoethink 1y ago

I’m quite positive on Meta right now.They’ve been making a string of smart, forward-looking moves — open-sourcing their LLMs (which builds ecosystem mindshare), scaling AI infrastructure aggressively, and now securing nuclear energy for long-term stability. This nuclear deal isn’t just PR or “greenwashing” — it’s a serious bet on power availability, which is quickly becoming the real bottleneck in AI. Compared to some of their peers, Meta seems more willing to take technically grounded, long-term positions rather than chasing hype.

blitzar 1y ago
> long-term positions rather than chasing hype Hows that metaverse thing that they pivoted into so hard they rebranded going?

fnands 1y ago

Luckily they don't own it, they are basically just helping guarantee its future operation. Pretty much the same for Microsoft and Three Mile Island.

myrmidon 1y ago

This is just PR and carbon greenwashing. The usecase of "cloud provider buys power plant to power data center" does not exist: All current power plants are completely unsuitable as single power source for a data center because uptime/reliability is way lower than what you would need; decoupling datacenters from the grid is just a losing move, which is why no credible operator is even trying. Are we gonna see more vertical integration between power generation/datacenters operation in the future? Maybe. But I'm very confident that we're not gonna see datacenters "leave the electrical grid" to be powered directly by nuclear plants, not now and not within 30 years either.

preisschild 1y ago
Tbf nuclear power plants have a capacity factor of more than 90%. Sure you still need a backup (like the grid), but 90% of the time not having to use the grid is a huge amount. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity
- myrmidon 1y ago
  Yes, but even 90% is completely insufficient for a datacenter, and you would have to substitute power for days or weeks (during refueling/maintenance), which makes backup systems unsuitable for the task. Taking this approach would also basically lock your datacenter power use to the exact output power of the reactor, preventing you from scaling either side of the setup freely. I think looking at moves like this from a power perspective is wrong, and I strongly believe that this is just minimum effort hedging against increasing CO2 costs (both monetary and reputational), i.e. greenwashing.
teruakohatu 1y ago
> This is just PR and carbon greenwashing. > All current power plants are completely unsuitable as single power source for a data center I don’t think this is a fair assessment. For example, there is a data center being built in New Zealand that will be grid connected but the power will be supplied from a huge hydro dam that has to have generators shutdown if the load is not great enough. Its primarily purpose is to power an aluminium smelter and there is not enough transmission capacity to transfer all the electricity elsewhere. Another counter example is home solar. If a house is grid connected it’s still producing green energy even if it still sips gas generation at night.

voidUpdate 1y ago

I'm guessing less...

jillesvangurp 1y ago

> The social media company will buy all the “clean energy attributes” of Constellation Energy’s Clinton Clean Energy Center, a 1.1 gigawatt nuclear power plant in central Illinois, starting in June 2027. Creative bookkeeping is a thing when it comes to carbon neutrality. They are still using electrons produced with gas power. But others in a place where Meta doesn't require much power get to use nuclear power now. It's interesting that they feel like they need to spend on carbon offsets. But I don't think carbon offsets are a long term solution. The core issue for companies like Meta is that they need to get their hands on large amounts of preferably clean power. Another interesting thing here of course is that this nuclear plant is hopelessly dependent on subsidies to stay operational. That's quite common with aging nuclear plants. It's apparently a deeply unprofitable business to be in. There's no such thing as a profitable nuclear plant that doesn't get heavily subsidized. Plenty of people in the nuclear sector are getting rich but very few under their own power (pun intended).

myrmidon 1y ago
I think this example illustrates the biggest problem with carbon credits very clearly: Basically, Meta subsidises all the electricity consumers near that plant to take the blame for the emissions that their datacenters cause. This achieves almost nothing: Emissions stay the same, no additional clean power is generated and there is no reduction in power consumption either. The only notable result is that Meta is now "blameless" on paper. As long as you can get carbon credits cheaply from peers that don't really need/profit/care about them, the whole scheme is rather useless.

ribcage 1y ago

[dead]

Ekaros 1y ago

This make lot of sense. Buying steady production of power almost at cost. So you get that power at lower margin. Your energy consumption is pretty flat so you utilize lot of it. And then you do not need to do futures or other type of contracts with extra costs to offset your price. Matching base load with base production in this way is actually sensible move. And for maintenance periods you can just plan for and buy the power from market.