7 ms·
DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor
- tombert 1y agoMaybe someone can elaborate on this, since I know basically nothing about chemistry or nuclear physics; isn't Three Mile Island still completely irradiated and unsafe for humans to inhabit?
- CivBase 1y agoThe article says the reactor they are bringing back on was active until as recently as 2019, so it's safe to say it's probably not uninhabitable.
- daemonologist 1y agoUnit 2 is the reactor that melted down and it has been shut down ever since (and partially decommissioned). Unit 1, a separate reactor at the same site, was operated normally until 2019 when it was shut down due to high costs. It was originally scheduled to be decommissioned by 2079 (sic) but is now being brought back online.
- comrh 1y agoIf it wasn't profitable in 2019, why is profitable now? Because Microsoft is commiting to be a customer?
- pseudalopex 1y agoMicrosoft committed to purchase the plant's capacity for 20 years. And US electricity demand grew very slowly from 2005 to 2020. It is growing rapidly now.
- dreamcompiler 1y agoAt around $110/MWh, according to the article. This is about 50% higher than what utility-scale PV or wind would cost. Guess they're using OpenAI accounting.
- ip26 1y agoI imagine data centers make the best economic sense when they can run full tilt 24/7. You’ll double your payoff time if you can only run work when the sun shines.
- epistasis 1y agoIn most parts of the country, solar plus batteries to get through 24 hours will be cheaper than $110/MWh.
- bawolff 1y agoDo you have a source for that, when i googled it came up closer to $200/MWh for new york, but that was from older sources. The only thing i saw approaching this price point was if you were somewhere like las vegas. I also think you would need more than 24 hours battery. You have to prepare for freak weather events that reduce system capacity. I also wonder what time horizon we are talking. solar and batteries presumably have to be replaced more often than nuclear.
- toast0 1y ago> I also think you would need more than 24 hours battery. You have to prepare for freak weather events that reduce system capacity. In general, yes. Not really in the context of utility generation for a DC, though. A DC should have onsite backup generation, at least to supply critical loads. If your contracted utility PV + storage runs out, and there's no spare grid capacity available (or it's too expensive) you can switch to onsite power for the duration. The capex for backup power is already required, so you're just looking at additional spending for fuel, maybe maintenance if the situation requires enough hours on backup.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- piperswe 1y agoThe Wikipedia page makes it seem like it's been largely cleaned up for decades: > In 1988, the NRC announced that, although it was possible to further decontaminate the Unit 2 site, the remaining radioactivity had been sufficiently contained as to pose no threat to public health and safety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- khuey 1y agoNo. Chernobyl (which was a far worse accident) continued to produce power at other units on the same site for 14 years after the meltdown of unit 4.
- egorfine 1y agoTMI was never irradiated and unsafe for humans to inhabit.
- CivBase 1y agoHow much would it cost to build a new reactor with comparable power output?
- zdragnar 1y agoCost varies with the site conditions. It's one of the many things that push nuclear construction costs up; every build needs to take into consideration the geographic nature of the site (bedrock levels, etc) and so every location requires customizations to the design. With that said, while it doesn't provide numbers, the article does say the refurbishment (costing $1.6 billion, estimated) will be cheaper than a new build. It'll also likely be much faster, projected to open in 2028. A quick google search puts construction costs of new nuclear of a Unit 2 size in the $5-10 billion range. 3 Mile Island itself was constructed for $2 billion in 2024 inflation-adjusted dollars. All in all, refurbishing sounds like a good bargain compared to a green field build.
- daemonologist 1y agoThere's not much to go off of on this subject in the US - only two successful reactor projects have been started since the 70s: Units 3 and 4 at Vogtle in Georgia*. They cost $15 billion each and bankrupted the remnants of Westinghouse (in combination with a similar project in South Carolina which was never finished). *Many reactors started construction in the 70s and were finished in the 80s or 90s, plus Watts Bar Unit 2 which was started in 1972 and finished in 2016 for a total of $5 billion. The US also of course builds many naval reactors.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago> There's not much to go off of on this subject in the US The main problem is that things cost more per unit if you do them less. The first new reactor in decades is going to be stupid expensive because you have new people doing it who are learning things for the first time, which often means doing them over again, which is expensive. And then we didn't even get to see if the second unit at Vogtle could improve on the first because then COVID hit and made everything cost even more. Whereas the interesting question is, how much do they each cost if you build them at scale?
- mitchbob 1y agohttps://archive.ph/YjljM https://archive.ph/YjljM
- mmooss 1y agoI wonder what the legal basis of the loan is. Congress controls the money; what authorization does the executive branch have for loaning $1 billion?
- zdragnar 1y agoIt's right in the article: > The debt facility is being made through the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office (LPO), which was formed under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to foster the growth of clean energy technologies and, more importantly: > The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed during the Biden administration, created another pot of money under the LPO known as the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program. That program was created to restore existing power plants to operation provided they avoid or reduce pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration kept it largely in tact, rebranding it the Energy Dominance Financing Program.
- imgabe 1y agoIt's in the article. > The debt facility is being made through the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office (LPO), which was formed under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to foster the growth of clean energy technologies. > The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed during the Biden administration, created another pot of money under the LPO known as the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program. That program was created to restore existing power plants to operation provided they avoid or reduce pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration kept it largely in tact, rebranding it the Energy Dominance Financing Program. Congress passed the Energy Policy act of 2005 and then the Inflation Reduction Act allocating money to the DoE to make these loans.
- int0x29 1y agoLooks like this falls under existing congressionally appropriated spending for the DOE
- aaronbrethorst 1y agoLearn all about it from the guy who ran the office in the last administration! https://www.ms.now/msnbc-podcast/msnbc/discussing-explosion-green-tech-jigar-shah-podcast-transcript-rcna141446 https://www.ms.now/msnbc-podcast/msnbc/discussing-explosion-...
- senectus1 1y agothey will be dependent on their allies for fuel sources.. in a list of countries with uranium resverves 1-59 they're number 55! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...
- stinkbeetle 1y agoNumber 55 when sorted alphabetically, if you're talking about the USA.
- lucaslazarus 1y agoThe U.S. is ranked #17 in that list at 101,900 tonnes, not #55.
- UltraSane 1y agoDo you have any idea how little Uranium reactors use? And in any case Australia host a LOT of uranium and is a very close ally and is happy to sell it to the US.
- tjmc 1y agoAnd we're even happier if you keep it!
- UltraSane 1y agoNuclear power is great and Australia is foolish for having 1/3 of all uranium in the world and not using it.
- protocolture 1y ago100%. We have this thing where every 10 years or so we collectively admit that if we started nuclear 10 years ago it would be fine, but we need it now, so it should remain illegal because its too expensive. Its some of the most insane doublethink in human politics.
- zombiwoof 1y ago[dead]
- sexeriy237 1y agoIsn't M$FT a $Trillion dollar company? They can afford it on their own bootstraps
- bawolff 1y agoYou dont get a billion dollar loan if you have no money. You are still expected to pay it back in the end.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- DeathArrow 1y agoMaybe the loan is cheaper than using their own money.
- yellowapple 1y agoMore critically: just because a company is worth $1 trillion doesn't mean it has anywhere close to $1 billion in cash at all, let alone able to be earmarked to a given project (at the presumed exclusion of other projects). Granted, a project like this probably doesn't strictly need all $1 billion all at once, but I'd argue it's better to get whatever necessary funding upfront instead of risking having sunk a partial investment without being able to obtain the rest should the company's financial situation change.
- lvspiff 1y agoThey do have money earmarked for this…its just a line item though called “lobbying”
- dpark 1y agoMicrosoft had over 94 billion in cash and cash equivalent as of June 2025. My assumption is that the real reason this is a loan from the government and not paid directly by Microsoft has to do with other factors, like Microsoft not waiting to be in the hook for the billion dollars if the partner company folds, or the potential for loan forgiveness, or other incentives that make the effectively loan cheaper than cash.
- DeathArrow 1y ago>That’s cheaper than a brand-new nuclear power plant would cost, but it’s a hefty premium over wind, solar, and geothermal, according to a comparison of energy costs from Lazard. Nuclear is more expensive because there are extensive regulations. "Green" energy not only does not face so many regulations but it benefits from incentives. Also, when comparing nuclear with "green" energy, most studies don't take into account the costs of energy storage.
- lm28469 1y agoStudies also don't take into account that by subsidizing solar you're subsidizing an industry that's already subsidized by the Chinese gov, it's cool in the short term but we're making the same mistake we've been making for the last 50 years Home grown nuclear programs will always be better than solar propped up by foreign entities.
- roryirvine 1y agoThat seems excessively defeatist. Just because the USA squandered its early advantage in solar tech doesn't necessarily mean that it can never hope to regain a leading position. Running away from the challenge now will all but guarantee defeat in the long term, so it's probably the wrong strategic decision to make.
- lm28469 1y ago75%+ of all batteries/panels/windmill blades are made in China. And if you decide to make them locally they'll be 5-10x more expensive and much less competitive because you don't have: - super low wages and borderline slave labor - easy and cheap access to rare earth - the CCP boosting your industries to flood the world
- roryirvine 1y agoBut what proportion of the cost of a solar panel is actually made up of rare earth minerals or labour? My understanding was that the cost of installation dominated the cost of manufacture for both wind and solar. And, sure, plenty of rare earths are needed both for the drivetrains in wind turbines, and for the power electronics used by solar farms. But they'll also be needed for the steam turbines and power electronics in nuclear plants. Seems like it's pretty much a wash to me. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems deeply weird for America to be refusing to even try to meet the challenge.
- egorfine 1y agoSo, even more AI shoved down our throats during the coming years?
- dundercoder 1y agoThis is very interesting to me because a plant this old might be cheaper to operate than a new plant, but might be like the space shuttle in that replacement parts aren’t readily available and thus expensive to custom manufacture. If you were to step into the control room you’d see analog phones, tiny incandescent bulbs behind plastic covers… looks like a sci-fi set from the 60s. The expensive part of a reactor isn’t really the reactor or tech itself, it’s the government regulation from the DOE and NRC. I worked at Areva/Framatome/B&W and IIRC they still have the archival room where hundreds of 4 inch D ring binders held the original design docs that had to be submitted for approval.
- SR2Z 1y ago> tiny incandescent bulbs behind plastic covers… Not too disagree with the bulk of comment, but this sentence is not true. They're 90V neon indicator lamps, a technology that's really cool but also so inefficient that people rip it out and replace it. Neat rabbit hole to do down.
- dundercoder 1y agoAppreciate the correction.