I just recently read this very well-written article on why SMRs don't make sense (I don't recall, but I probably got the link here!).<p><a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/30/what-drives-this-madness-on-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/30/what-drives-this-madnes...</a><p>sample excerpt:
To be clear, if SMRs made sense, existing nuclear power generation facilities are the place to build them. They are already at the centre of the seven overlapping layers of defence that nuclear generation sites require from the international, all supply and waste chains and the physical and electronic security of the facility itself.
Incorrect headline. More accurate would be: "Microsoft trying to hire someone to investigate nuclear power". This is the first in a series of about 100 steps before they actually build a reactor. And the overwhelming likelihood is that they study it, decide it's too risky/expensive, and shelve the project.
Nuclear is a reasonable source of green power, but this is the fourth-or-so time I've seen a MAANG suggest they're going to use it. I'd ignore this until someone breaks ground.
Great to see Microsoft deploying some of it's capital to develop SMRs, the potential seems great, but governments don't seem to have gone further than nuclear submarines.
I have an idea. Why don't we give new experimental AI systems their own off-grid nuclear power plants so they can't be switched off. There's no way that could go wrong.
>Microsoft has also made an audacious deal to purchase electricity from a company called Helion that’s developing an even more futuristic fusion power plant.<p>If we're going to 'solve' global warming, we really need fusion ASAP. It truly is a silver bullet for this problem and will also be the key to colonizing Mars.
Dupe from recent past.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37627697">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37627697</a>