- cross-posted to:
- politics@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- politics@sh.itjust.works
You must log in or register to comment.
America: privatized profits, socialized costs.
How much longer y’all just going to keep taking it in the ass?
We really don’t have much say in it. Sure we vote but there’s an entire segment of the country that’s afraid of immigrants whose influence is very disproportional to the percentage of the population.
Entire segment? Nearly half the population is complacent lol
Yes, but have you considered that their rep showed up to a thing they were at, was nice to them, and correctly displayed the tribal symbols?
Microsoft has cash reserves of $75 billion.
Microsoft - If you really want to convince us that nuclear power is part of the future, why can’t you use some of your own money? Why does every single nuclear suggestion always rely on bailouts from taxpayers? Here’s a thought, if you can’t pay for it yourself - just pick the cheaper option that taxpayers don’t have to pay for - you know renewables and grid storage? The stuff that everybody else, all over the world, is building near 99% of new electricity generation with.
Companies should EVER get tax payer money unless the taxpayers actually ask for something to be done by them.
If a company asks, it should be immediate denial since these companies don’t pay shit for taxes to begin with.
But muh jobs! /s
Depressingly, a factory is tangible, and the economic benefits of not subsidising things randomly based on political expediency are subtle. Add in the occasional edge cases where subsidies actually make sense (idle military manufacturing capacity during peacetime, for example) and this is a law that tends not to be put in place or stay in place.
Proposals like this are exactly why corporations don’t pay much tax. They have tons of deals and situations like this that offset their profits/tax burden
Which is precisely why it should be an instant, guaranteed, “no”.
If you really want to convince us that nuclear power is part of the future
I somehow doubt that’s the main priority here.
Then this is no different than taxpayer funded sports stadiums…
So when their AI prospects don’t prove as fruitful as they hope, they’re not holding the liability? Sounds about Reagan.
Only a week or two ago people were arguing on Lemmy that the fact Microsoft wants to use this facility shows nuclear is economically viable.
I was wondering how they could keep a straight face…
Why doesn’t the government just give the loan to Constellation to restart the reactor? What’s the point of Microsoft in this.
That’s sort of what is happening. Government is guaranteeing $1.6B of Constellation’s loans.
Constellation is sourcing a loan themselves, but if they can’t pay, government will pay $1.6B of what is left owing.
This makes Constellation’s loans cheaper
Aside from that, existing policy of government paying part of the cost of clean* power means Microsoft will pay less for the power
So taxpayers are on the hook for one and a half gigabucks if Constellation goes bust
Taxpayers are also on the hook for part of the cost of the power produced
The headline makes no sense to me and the article crosses over 2 problems in the energy transition.
Microsoft is only involved in purchasing the power, not the facility itself. In my understanding, that means that Constellation is the only party here involved in the government backed loan. Noting also that the loan itself is not malicious, nor is its use to restart the facility - if nuclear facilities should not be funded or have any special tax status then that should have been considered in the government’s legislation.
The 2nd part about the power from the plant going to grid, and not to Microsoft’s data centres directly is a known issue which close to all companies exploit by buying green certificates which I understand are currently done monthly in some areas. That means we do not trace that each electron provided to a user was from renewables, instead we aggregate that a company (via purchasing “green” certificates) shows that enough “green” electricity, anywhere on a connection, was produced to cover their usage for that month. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, their data centres, or this facility in general but is currently being dealt with. It will be clear in the power purchasing agreement how much power Microsoft will purchase from the facility directly and how it is delivered.
Am I missing something?
And no, I don’t think nuclear power is overly helpful given the exorbitant cost, time and waste aspects
I appreciate your post but I disagree with your premise on cost. It is not worth it if you are a company looking for a quick turn around, but it is still the cheapest long term. Also waste is not the issue it once was, though it is still an issue.
The biggest issue with nuclear is NIMBYism and stigma. (And going with lowest bidder contractors)
Regarding the second part, there really is little difference between buying clean power here versus there. The net carbon spend goes down just exactly enough
The only place it does matter is if you live near a coal plant you can’t directly fix your locality by buying green energy certificates
I find it odd that Microsoft thinks that nuclear power is the cheapest way it can zero carbon its data centers
Wind and solar have been so much cheaper for so long now
Tech companies do something sane? Never.
Honestly I expect half the reason is the headlines
I expect it’s an exec with non mainstream opinions on power generation
Fast computers are very expensive to the point where it makes sense to pay more for power to keep them running 24/7 instead of shutting them off every night when the sun sets.
Wind is always blowing
That’s literally impossible by geometry if you mean everywhere.
Even in practice in one location, it varies enough to make it a problem if you need a steady supply. Sometimes is blows a little or barely at all, sometimes a lot, and occasionally so much you have to lock on the breaks and stop the thing to avoid damage.
I always upvote the hairy ball theorem.
