As always, I wish them luck.
Video description:
Microsoft’s plans to enter nuclear energy production were revealed after the company placed a job posting for a Nuclear Technology role. The posting called for a Principal Project Manager tasked with overseeing a global small modular reactor and micro-reactor strategy. The news follows record investment in nuclear startups in recent years, with tech billionaires Bill gates, Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel all putting their money behind nuclear power.
But the move from Microsoft may also signify a realisation that dysfunctional western energy policy will not be able to provide the power-hungry AI chips and data centres with the energy they need – with big tech choosing to invest in new nuclear projects when their own governments will not.The video acknowledges the screw up in reliance on the HALEU nuclear fuel that small reactor designs require. Currently the entire world’s supply of HALEU comes from Russia.
Computerworld:Microsoft has made no public statement on the specific goals of its nuclear energy program, but the obvious possibility — particularly in the wake of its third-party nuclear enegry deal — is a concern for environmental issues. Although nuclear power has long been plagued by serious concerns about its safety and role in nuclear weapons proliferation, the rapidly worsening climate situation makes it a comparatively attractive alternative to fossil fuels, given the relatively large amount of energy it that can be generated without producing atmospheric emissions.
–
Microsoft has already moved to embrace nuclear power, signing a deal in June with Virginia-based nuclear plant operator Constellation Energy to power a data center in that area, with the aim of making that data center’s power source carbon free.
Reuters:
A nuclear energy project in Wyoming, backed by Bill Gates and the U.S. Energy Department, is delayed by at least two years amid worries about supplies of a special fuel currently made in Russia, the head of TerraPower, the company building it said on Wednesday.
“But the move from Microsoft may also signify a realisation that dysfunctional western energy policy will not be able to provide the power-hungry AI chips and data centres with the energy they need …”
Oh, please.
A small nuclear reactor is likely way smaller than a Gigawatt. Is this reporter trying to argue that it would be impossible to have a PV/wind farm with storage that could not do that? That’s preposterous.
Microsoft is doing this for some weird political reasons only they can explain. The decision has precisely zero to do with the ability of non nuclear RE to get the job done.
this youtube channel is clearly promoting nuclear, I get it.
Nevertheless, it is true that a number of large corporations who use a lot of power or heat are looking at SMRs. One problem has been clean energy, solar and wind, getting held up in permitting by a coordinated fossil fuel disinformation campaign.
So, anyone that wants to speed that process needs to get active in local and state politics.
I’m taking this with a grain of salt. Not a fan of Bill Gates, met him a couple of times and was not impressed, but lately things have been attributed to him that are contradictory. Specifically recent reporting has him claiming the climate crisis is overblown but here we have him claiming the crisis to justify the nuke
The problem is everyone treats him like he’s some genius, and he’s not …
I could not find BG saying the climate crisis is overblown. He does bring up the technically correct but essentially pointless distinction between the planet and the lifeforms on it:
Yes, Earth will be fine, like Venus and Mercury and Mars are fine.
no life there, but fine.
Saying ‘Earth will be fine’ means that life will go on – as it has through many a catastrophe for particular species, or for whole ecosystems. Humans, and their civilization, maybe not so much.
That was the quote I couldn’t find, hence ‘overblown’ v exaggeration. My point, if I put my hat on right: there seems to be some misinformation going on re BG and I’m just not inclined to give it much cred
I have a time or two shut down christianists with ‘yes, you’re right, we mere men cannot destroy the planet … but we can make it so we can’t live …
Anybody can create exaggeration about anything.
I can say all Arctic ice will disappear by next year or our heat dome would never end (it did, finally). For BG to bring this up is disingenuous.
Exaggeration is not the problem.
Doomerism is not the problem.
They are so far down the list behind
– people actively undermining RE transition
– people moving to vulnerable areas
– running out of money to respond to disasters
– increasing hits on worldwide food supply
– tax base death spirals
– explosion of number of desperate migrants
– increased air-conditioning energy demand
and many more.
Man, the mainstream media can’t get enough of conflating cooling towers with nuclear energy.
it’s shorthand for dummies