US regulator rejects bid to boost nuclear power to Amazon data center | Hacker News Reader

US regulator rejects bid to boost nuclear power to Amazon data center

thehill.com

23 pointsWaitWaitWha11 comments

> In a 2-1 decision, the FERC found the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, failed to prove that the changes to the transmission agreement with Susquehanna power plant were necessary.

If the standard is "necessary" then you can shoot down anything you want on a whim. No particular connection or plant is ever necessary.

> “Co-location arrangements of the type presented here present an array of complicated, nuanced and multifaceted issues, which collectively could have huge ramifications for both grid reliability and consumer costs,”

...and? This is so generic, and you have even more potential for ramifications if the power has to take a less direct route.

What's the actual meat of the complaint here?

I think there are two things that change. One is that Amazon would be controlling output scheduling of part of the the power station rather than the grid operator. The other is that this would be behind the meter for Amazon like rooftop solar, so would be accounted for differently in the annual report.

Is the issue that this reduces power to the grid, specifically therefore reduces base load power since it’s nuclear? Thereby making the rest of the grid less stable? Presumably Amazon still pays for the electricity.

The clean, dense, non-intermittent power provided by nuclear reactors is extremely valuable.

Unless you are located near a hydroelectric dam, there is really no substitute.

The government will not allow the technology companies to "hog" existing reactors.

Presumably this will force the technology companies to build their own reactors. Good.

I'll end with a quote from Yann LeCun (Vice-President, Chief AI Scientist at Meta):

  AI datacenters will be built next to energy production sites that can produce 
  gigawatt-scale, low-cost, low-emission electricity continuously.

  Basically, next to nuclear power plants.

  The advantage is that there is no need for expensive and wasteful
  long-distance distribution infrastructure.

  Note: Yes, solar and wind are nice and all, but they require lots of land
  and massive-scale energy storage systems for when there is too little sun
  and/or wind. Neither simple nor cheap.

https://x.com/ylecun/status/1837875035270263014

Why does it say "boost" in the headline? Wouldn't "redirect" be more accurate?

Tech’s investments in nuclear is the single most compelling argument against solar and renewables being enough to sustain the grid.

Are you saying that the fact that tech companies presumably run the numbers and decided to invest in nuclear is the argument? That basically amounts to saying "you don't need to see the data, just trust these guys' evaluation of the data".

For most of us the compelling argument would be the underlying data and decision making that Amazon made, not the outcome of Amazon's decision alone.

I’m not sure what you’re asking here.

If big tech are rational actors—and I see no reason to believe otherwise—then they must have compelling reasons to think that their future growth of AI data centers can’t be met by renewables alone.

At least not cost effectively. Why?

It’s not proof that renewables aren’t enough but it’s compelling enough evidence to investigate further.

Finally: I also don’t know who “most of us” is; who do you believe you speak for?

All I'm saying is if their reasons are so good, then those reasons should be the argument itself, not that amazon decided to go that path.

I'd rather hear the case, than hear that some judge heard the case in secret and trust their conclusion.Especially as what is a strong case for amazon may including things irrelevant or outright mis-aligned to the public interest though.

Wait, you're actually asking for proprietary analysis and data? If I were in a position to have that data or any inside information--and I'm not, thankfully--I certainly wouldn't provide it in Hacker News.

I'm not going to pursue this argument further with you.

Edit: On the off-chance you're a journalist--because I do know a few who lurk here, though they'll never admit it--then consider this a compelling line of thought and evidence to do some actual legwork.

But there is also massive tech investment in solar and other renewables?

This argument makes no sense. There are a zillion different companies, research labs, VCs etc making investments into everything- better solar panels and better batteries and yeast that make biofuels and modular nuclear reactors and lower-energy CPUs and alternative ways to make fertilizer or concrete and on and on.

You're saying in essence, "Because a company with specific use-case X wants technology A, then technology B must be bad".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com