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.
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 !
I was thinking of the economics as opposed to the safety aspects. Seems an expensive option.
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.
I assume this is pr to distract from their increasing use of fossil fuels
Yeah but Three Mile Island? Seriously?
Now it’s possible that the MSFT press release gave it a more anodyne name and the press sussed out where it was, but still.