• Greyghoster@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Interesting as old nuclear plants are always said to be expensive to operate due to maintenance and old technology issues. Microsoft must really be in a bind to go for an expensive and uncertain supply.

    • sus@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Advanced bayesian estimations show that the risks of a nuclear plant that is not yet operational are very low. And the chance that they will still be employed at microsoft (after the bubble pops) by 2028 is exceedingly low, reducing effective risk significantly !

        • corbin@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Nuclear power has fairly predictable amortized returns. I imagine that this is worth the cost to MS over the next two decades or so; we have no idea what their current energy premium is like, and this plant doesn’t have to be as cheap as a new plant, just cheaper than the current premium.

          • Greyghoster@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            If it was cheaper than the current premium, I expect that the plant would still be in operation, however as I don’t know the numbers so it must be worthwhile.

            • froztbyte@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Constellation Energy shut down the Unit 1 reactor in 2019 — not the one that melted down in 1979, the other one — because it wasn’t economical. Inflation Reduction Act tax breaks made it viable again

              almost like it was literally in the article