Modern AI data centers consume enormous amounts of power, and it looks like they will get even more power-hungry in the coming years as companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and OpenAI strive towards artificial general intelligence (AGI). Oracle has already outlined plans to use nuclear power plants for its 1-gigawatt datacenters. It looks like Microsoft plans to do the same as it just inked a deal to restart a nuclear power plant to feed its data centers, reports Bloomberg.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 minutes ago

        Yes in a research lab. Here we’re talking about Microsoft.

        Have you ever used something they made? Did it meet your standard of being “good work”? No. It’s a greedy, soulless cash grab disguised as software that infects the entire organization and disables common sense.

        M$ actually running a nuclear plant is a guaranteed disaster. Blue Screen of Death.

      • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        46 minutes ago

        You know, that actually makes sense. Fusion is so energetic and probabilistic in nature, plus it’s effectively “charged fluid dynamics” and there are an impossible number of variables to handle. That’s literally the kind of shit AI is great at.

        Fission though? Not so much

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    36 minutes ago

    Personally? I don’t think this is a bad idea. The less they drain from the grid, the less they consume fossil fuel.

    The reactor isn’t active right now, and they are a PWR design, and like the 1979 incident showed, they do fail safely.

    So long as Microsoft pays for the operation of the plant? Seems reasonable to me if they’re going to consume an assload of energy with or without public support.

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      32 minutes ago

      we could use that extra energy to offset a bunch of existing carbon emissions now. This is still waste. If it’s going to be started up again, and its energy used for something useless, it’s waste.

      • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 minutes ago

        Microsoft would do it with or without the power plant. Make no mistake about that.

        The same argument could be said if they made a 1GW solar farm, or any other form of power generation. Unless you have a way to legislatively prevent Microsoft from producing their own energy or prevent acquisition of decommissioned plants, I don’t see how you can prevent waste.

  • MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Ironically, the power hungriness of AI might actually do good for the environment if it normalizes nuclear energy.

    Quite the twist

  • Eximius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Lol. I just love it how so many people complain that Nuclear doesnt make financial sense, and then the most financially motivated companies just actually figure out that using a nuclear reactor completely privately is best.

    Fuck sake, world.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 minutes ago

        Nuclear safety and penny-pinchers capitalism don’t make good bedfellows.

        ftfy. Possibly ironically, nuclear safety and communism (or totalitarianism) don’t work either. It’s odd, innit.

    • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Microsoft jumped fully on the AI hype bandwagon with their partnership in OpenAI and their strategy of forcing GenAI down our throats. Instead of realizing that GenAI is not much more than a novel parlor trick that can’t really solve problems, they are now fully committing.

      Microsoft invested $1 billion in OpenAI, and reactivating 3 Mile Island is estimated at $1.6 billion. And any return on these investments are not guaranteed. Generally, GenAI is failing to live up to its promises and there is hardly any GenAI use case that actually makes money.

      This actually has the potential of greatly damaging Microsoft, so I wouldn’t say all their decisions are financially rational and sound.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 hours ago

        On the other hand, if they ever admit the whole genAI thing doesn’t work, they could just sell the electricity produced by the plant.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 minutes ago

          if they ever admit the whole genAI thing doesn’t work

          . . . The entire multi-billion-dollar hype train goes off the cliff. All the executives that backed it look like clowns, the layoffs come back to bite them - hard - and Microsoft wont recover for a decade.

          I mean . . . a boy can dream

        • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          58 minutes ago

          GenAI = Generative AI

          AGI = Artificial General Intelligence

          You are talking about the latter. They were talking about the former.

    • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I’m firmly in the “building new nuclear doesn’t make financial sense” camp, but I do think that extending the life of any existing nuclear plant does. Restarting a previously operational nuclear plant lies somewhere in between.

      • grudan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 minutes ago

        I think when you start looking at how expensive other forms of green energy are (like wind) long term, nuclear looks really good. Short term, yeah it’s expensive, but we need long term solutions.

      • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        42 minutes ago

        Relatively yes. There are disposal sites under construction that are in highly stable and environmentally safe locations. One good thing right now is that radioactive waste is temporarily easily stored. Transport of waste is an issue still, but far less of a problem than transporting oil and oil products.

      • SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        We haven’t solved the “disposal” question of using fossil fuels, and those turned out (or were known along) to cause much bigger problems.

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Mostly, yes. Use breeder reactors to turn long term radioactive waste to sort term radioactive waste, store for short time and done. The downside: it’s more expensive to move and process the stuff so nobody wants to do that.

      • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Like most things with environmental impact, we just let later generations deal with it. Somehow.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Honestly it seems crazy that companies that are so focused on short-term profits in 2024 would be able to make nuclear work.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        56 minutes ago

        Every once in a while they get faced with a line on a chart somewhere so unbelievably vertical that they have no choice but to look beyond next quarter. Power consumption going 10x in 2 years is one of those times.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I am all for nuclear power, but I’d rather it be from modern reactor designs and builds, and I’d rather it not be wasted on bullshit.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      51 minutes ago

      Hey now that’s not fair. AI can randomize your music playlists, summarize an email, write terrible code, steal others work, and completely invade your privacy.

      What’s that? Oh, I guess you’re right, we could do all that stuff already.

  • TacticsConsort@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Holy sunk cost fallacy, batman. How fucking much does it cost to operate an ENTIRE GODDAMN NUCLEAR REACTOR just to fuel a tech project that nobody wants???

    • Korkki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Investors want it, because they want to ride the wave towards profit. It doesn’t matter if it’s good, sustainable or not. That is what matters.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      49 minutes ago

      I think pre post-apocalypse is just the apocalypse. If you read the news these days that sounds like a pretty accurate description of the time we’re living in. We’re all just pretending it hasn’t started yet.