News Nvidia goes nuclear — company joins Bill Gates in backing TerraPower, a company building nuclear reactors for powering data centers

[Admin]

Nvidia is investing in nuclear power to ensure that it will have enough power for its data centers in the future.

Nvidia goes nuclear — company joins Bill Gates in backing TerraPower, a company building nuclear reactors for powering data centers : Read more

 

[ezst036]

The big tech companies like Nvidia and Oracle don't want the peasants with pitchforks gathering in huge numbers outside of their campuses because AI drove electricity costs through the roof when it is already through the roof.

Photographs like that would be a bad look.

 

[coolitic]

Glad that there's a large industrial impetus for advancing nuclear power.

 

[thaddeusk]

Glad that there's a large industrial impetus for advancing nuclear power.

Yeah, we should have been replacing coal with nuclear for decades now.

 

[punkncat]

So far as I am aware, the only "private" enterprise or company to hold permits for a reactor of this type is, surprisingly, Disney in Florida.

 

[artk2219]

So far as I am aware, the only "private" enterprise or company to hold permits for a reactor of this type is, surprisingly, Disney in Florida.

It would have made sense for them to have a reactor around disney world. All the power they need for their parks, and they could sell the surplus back to the community.

 

[punkncat]

It would have made sense for them to have a reactor around disney world. All the power they need for their parks, and they could sell the surplus back to the community.

AFAIK this dates back some years as, of course, the park was built out in what was a lot of swamp at the time. Given the population density and infrastructure that is now in place it would be pointless and dangerous due to proximity. For some reason it is still a viable option for them in some fashion.

 

[lixao]

The only thing I would like is for thorium nuclear reactors to become a reality in the private sector. Uranium-based nuclear reactors are better than coal and other dirty sources but they are only really used by the violent state to create their miserable bombs.

 

[ManDaddio]

Nuclear is good. It was dumb to ramp it down. Government just need to make sure they are built properly and ran properly. They are safe over all.

 

[ManDaddio]

The big tech companies like Nvidia and Oracle don't want the peasants with pitchforks gathering in huge numbers outside of their campuses because AI drove electricity costs through the roof when it is already through the roof.

Photographs like that would be a bad look.

That's not why electricity prices went up. We should never stop building nuclear reactors. And natural gas is a good alternative to coal but the idiots want to demonize that too.

CO2 is not bad for the planet. It never was and never will be. Life depends on co2, oxygen and nitrogen. Without those three things life can't exist. At least in the context God created the Earth.

 

[Eximo]

Indiana, a no nuclear state, passed a law a few years back that would allow any existing power facility to be retrofitted for nuclear. No new construction is allowed, but I have high hopes someone will actually do it. It was small modular nuclear lobbyists who got it passed, but none of them have taken up the effort.

 

[Maybe its just me]

Where is the working SMR in the free world? The race to this nonexistent solution being promised for over a decade, with delivery slipping a year every 12 months is curious. How much will a kwhr cost from one of those once they work? Before you tell me what a waste of land solar is, one acre of solar yields the same energy as 40 acres of corn grown for ethanol. Look at your internet and find out how many acres of corn for ethanol we grow in the US.

 

[Maybe its just me]

That's not why electricity prices went up. We should never stop building nuclear reactors. And natural gas is a good alternative to coal but the idiots want to demonize that too.

CO2 is not bad for the planet. It never was and never will be. Life depends on co2, oxygen and nitrogen. Without those three things life can't exist. At least in the context God created the Earth.

Ask your friends in GA and SC how their electric bills look now that they have Summer and Vogtle nuclear plants.

 

[TJ Hooker]

CO2 is not bad for the planet. It never was and never will be. Life depends on co2, oxygen and nitrogen. Without those three things life can't exist.

The fact that some amount of CO2 is good and necessary doesn't mean any amount of CO2 is good. And nobody, not a single person, is advocating for eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere, nor reducing it to such a level that would be harmful to life. Nor are any current or near-future carbon reduction efforts at any risk of doing so. Any one saying CO2 is bad is only saying that in our current climate context, i.e. where we have an excessive, increasing amount.

Your argument is like arguing that (excess) food isn't harmful to obese people, because food is good, people need food to survive. In other words, it is ridiculous to the point that it's hard to believe it was made in good faith.

 

[Eximo]

Where is the working SMR in the free world? The race to this nonexistent solution being promised for over a decade, with delivery slipping a year every 12 months is curious. How much will a kwhr cost from one of those once they work? Before you tell me what a waste of land solar is, one acre of solar yields the same energy as 40 acres of corn grown for ethanol. Look at your internet and find out how many acres of corn for ethanol we grow in the US.

I think, for the most part, stuck behind regulations and certification. You also have big nuclear out there trying to suppress this since they make a lot in selling fuel rods to current reactor models.

There is also some concerns with the small reactors and the need to constantly replace them. They are not exactly designed for 'long' term use and the disposal/recycling of their main structures is going to require an infrastructure of its own.

I think the engineering challenges are relatively minor. It is getting buy in on economies of scale. The first production runs of these things are going to be hugely expensive and be non-competitive. They'll have to line up investors willing to bet on being in the red for potentially a decade before seeing a return.

 

[Sluggotg]

I think, for the most part, stuck behind regulations and certification. You also have big nuclear out there trying to suppress this since they make a lot in selling fuel rods to current reactor models.

There is also some concerns with the small reactors and the need to constantly replace them. They are not exactly designed for 'long' term use and the disposal/recycling of their main structures is going to require an infrastructure of its own.

I think the engineering challenges are relatively minor. It is getting buy in on economies of scale. The first production runs of these things are going to be hugely expensive and be non-competitive. They'll have to line up investors willing to bet on being in the red for potentially a decade before seeing a return.

40 years in Nuclear Power. First off, "Big Nuclear" is non-existent. The Fuel bundle manufacturers are thrilled that they will be able to build and sell fuel to more reactors. There is no need to "Constantly Replace" SMR's. You refuel them regularly, but you don't "Replace" them. Nuscale is my favorite SMR design. I have been to their simulator in Richland Washington. Lots of my former coworkers work there and even my Brother did before he retired.

Folks, almost every Movie and TV series that has something to do with Radiation and/or Nuclear Power is wrong. It is similar to when movies have a character getting gut shot by a gun but is rescued by removing the bullet with a pair of pliers, (so his destroyed internal organs healed?). It is a long boring subject.

Nuscale SMRs have a vastly reduced number of systems. Refueling them is a breeze compared to traditional Large Reactors. They are much, much easier to Operate. They are also off the charts safety wise. I am not trying to be a Nuscale salesman, I am just familiar with their design.

 

[Eximo]

I was referencing a molten salt thorium reactor, which apparently has neutron damage problems with the interior surfaces and must be swapped out periodically. The remaining fuel and breeding results separated to be made into new fuel. NuScale appears to be using uranium, so yes, their reactor should be easier to refuel and be supplied by the current fuel manufacturers.

I'm a big fan of SMR as well. But not a nuclear engineer.

 

[obvious oscar]

That's not why electricity prices went up. We should never stop building nuclear reactors. And natural gas is a good alternative to coal but the idiots want to demonize that too.

CO2 is not bad for the planet. It never was and never will be. Life depends on co2, oxygen and nitrogen. Without those three things life can't exist. At least in the context God created the Earth.

Trying to talk science, referencing back to your imaginary friend. That isn't going to get many people to take what you say seriously.

 

[originalcanadian]

To nitpick, the image used in the article is not a nuclear power plant... Its a glass steel production facility in Wuhan China.

Second, regarding SMRs. Traditional (but scaled down) BWR designs are already being built in Ontario. The BWRX-300. These are not as cost efficient as large scale nuclear. But have the prospect of being easier to finance by private companies due to lower total capital expenditure for the plant. Unfortuately it requires enriched uranium to run, unlike the current fleet of CANDUs which just runs on natural unenriched uranium.

Realistically SMRs may be attractive for industry use, where a 4000MW nameplate capacity 4 pack plant is not economically viable for someone like Microsoft or Nvidia to finance. Whereas a one or two pack of ~300MW reactors is more viable. But for the actual grid, large nuclear will likely be more cost effective.

 

[BladePocok]

Nuclear is good. It was dumb to ramp it down. Government just need to make sure they are built properly and ran properly. They are safe over all.

That's the problem, most of the time there hiccups and fails. And unlike other type of typical reactors, if nuclear goes wrong... oh well, we all saw that show!