172
submitted 1 month ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago
[-] Entropywins@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago
[-] NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago

Microsoft Mutually Azured Destruction

[-] micka190@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

It's okay, even if if they wanted to nuke the world, they'd need to find which specific portal to log into, and even after inputing everything correctly there'd be around an hour before the servers actually processed the change request.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Hey man, nuke-the-world requests take time to propagate you know.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Amazon Nuclear Prime.

2 hour weapon delivery. Free year of movies included.

[-] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 1 month ago

Where do you buy fuel grade uranium in order to run your own reactor?

I'm asking for a friend.

[-] Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

I think a lot of it is mined in Africa.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Well if you're in the US you can get it from New Mexico and Wyoming. We've even got a few mines here in Texas.

So in the US it's a matter of getting licensed by the NRC and contacting one of the many processing facilities.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Mali has a significant mine that France essentially controls. In America, we have mines but import a lot too.

We actually currently buy about 25% of our uranium supply from Russia, though Congress just passed a ban that’ll go in effect in 90 days. It allows for waivers if there are supply issues, though, so it might end up being more than 90 days. (I have no idea how quickly a country can find a new uranium supplier but it sounds complicated.)

[-] expr@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago

I know it's a joke, but just wanted to say that Uranium used for fuel is not something you can actually use for weaponry directly. It requires enrichment to increase the concentration of U-235 to weapons-grade levels.

[-] You999@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

You have to talk to a Westinghouse sells rep. If you want uranium outside of a fuel rod most chemical supplier sell it.

[-] dwalin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

No shopping cart? Was this site built on the 90s?

[-] You999@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Chemdirect has a shopping cart?

[-] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I heard my local data center had a few fall off the truck last week out by lakeview.

[-] mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 1 month ago

Is this the plot of Mr.Robot or what?

[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Hello, old friend

[-] jbloggs777@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 month ago

When you have cloud providers growing faster than the region's grid capacity, something has to give ... throttle growth there, or plan for mega growth? I guess it helps that nuclear is green again. 😁

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

throttle growth

You don't want line to go up? That smells like commie talk!

[-] nehal3m@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

Throttle growth? But then how will we create believable bullshit generators? We have to stick an AI label on useless crap to sell damnit!

[-] TheFerrango@lemmy.basedcount.com 1 points 1 month ago

Nuclear.AI here we come

[-] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

It's not cloud, it's AI.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago
[-] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

I mean, that's what Ford did. They had the tech to generate power for the factory, so were the city's electric company.

[-] Usernameblankface@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah, do it. Quit being a consumer of mixed source power, start being a producer of steady, good energy.

(Dirty enough that calling it clean green energy gets pushback, but far better than non-green normal sources like coal or natural gas.)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 points 1 month ago

We should be building them in every cold climate city to take advantage of cogeneration heating.

[-] lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago

What is currently the state of things for nuclear waste in the US? In germany they still search for a place for storing it long term. Gets in the news now and then. Did the US have more success with finding a good site? Or is this again just companies betting to hand over the waste to the public when they are done? As I remember in germany the companies got a cheap buy out for the waste after the closure of nuclear power plants where setup.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah I call bullshit on that. I get why they're investing money in it, but this is a moonshot and I'm sure they don't expect it to succeed.

These data centers can be built almost anywhere in the world. And there are places with very predictable weather patterns making solar/wind/hydro/etc extremely cheap compared to nuclear.

Nuclear power is so expensive, that it makes far more sense to build an entire solar farm and an entire wind farm, both capable of providing enough power to run the data center on their own in overcast conditions or moderate wind.

If you pick a good location, that's lkely to work out to running off your own power 95% of the time and selling power to the grid something like 75% of the time. The 5% when you can't run off your own power... no wind at night is rare in a good location and almost unheard of in thick cloud cover, well you'd just draw power from the grid. Power produced by other data centers that are producing excess solar or wind power right now.

In the extremely rare disruption where power wouldn't be available even from the grid... then you just shift your workload to another continent for an hour or so. Hardly anyone would notice an extra tenth of a second of latency.

Maybe I'm wrong and nuclear power will be 10x cheaper one day. But so far it's heading the other direction, about 10x more expensive than it was just a decade ago, thanks to incidents like Fukushima and that tiny radioactive capsule lost in Western Australia proving current nuclear safety standards, even in some of the safest countries in the world, are just not good enough. Forcing the industry to take additional measures (additional costs) going forward.

[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

IMHO, data centers kind of need to be somewhat close to important population areas in order to ensure low latency.

You need a spot with attainable land, room to scale, close proximity to users, and decent infrastructure for power / connectivity. You can’t actually plop something out in the middle of BFE.

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You can’t actually plop something out in the middle of BFE.

The number of data centers in Prineville/Hermiston/Umatilla/Boardman, OR beg to differ. Power is cheap due to the Bonneville dams and that trumps latency as they're BFE as hell unless you live in Portland.

While latnecy matters sometimes, there's still a lot of data center services that care a lot less and can be put anywhere.

[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

One of those cities is pretty close to Redmond. The other 2 are 2-3 hours away from a major population center. The San Francisco equivalent would be data centers in Sacramento. Not exactly next door, but close enough to ensure that latency isn’t terrible for loading an e-commerce site or something.

[-] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I remember reading a story about an email server that was limited to sending emails within 150 miles. Through a lot of digging, they found it was due to an auto-timeout timer getting reset to 0ms. Anything further than 150 miles would cause a 1ms delay and thus get rejected for taking too long.

[-] baru@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago
[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

For the majority of applications you need data centers for, latency just doesn't matter. Bandwidth, storage space, and energy costs for example are all generally far more important.

[-] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

The earth has a circumference of 25,000 miles, and the speed of light in a fiber cable is 124,000 miles per second, so going the whole way around the earth would take .2 seconds(assuming you could send a signal that far).

[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Sure, but infrastructure is not just fiber, and there is a lot of stuff in between your long stretches of fiber.

I’m not a sys ops guy, but I can pull from different data centers and see measurable differences

This is a pretty well known phenomenon. That’s why we have cloud data centers located close to major metro areas.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] treadful@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This isn't a moonshot at all. Checkout these eVinci microcreactors by Westinghouse. They're currently being deployed in industrial settings around the US. They're modular too so you just add more to scale. Pretty wild.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They’re currently being deployed in industrial settings around the US.

I searched and I can't find any cases of such a reactor being deployed anywhere in the US.

"Microreactors for civilian use are currently in the earliest stages of development, with individual designs ranging in various stages of maturity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_microreactor

The reactor you're referring to doesn't even have a Wikipedia page.

Weird.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That eVinci reactor is tiny at only 5MW. You'd need something like a thousand of them to run a single AI data center. It's also horrifically expensive at over $100 million (each! multiply that by a thousand!) and it can only produce that amount of power for eight years, then I'm not sure what you do. Buy a thousand more of them?

For comparison, some wind turbines provide more than twice as much power from just a single turbine. And they cost single digit millions to setup. They're not as reliable and they're also bigger than a micro nuclear reactor. But none of that really matters for a data center, which can draw power from the grid if it needs to.

The only really promising small reactor I've heard of is the NuScale one - but it may have been vapourware. Republicans made a big splash during the 2016 election campaign and committed to paying 1/12th of the cost of a reactor as part of their clean energy "commitment". There was no price tag, just 1/12th.

A couple years later, after they'd won the election, they quietly abandoned that plan and agreed to pay $1.3 billion which they claimed would be 1/4th of the budget. The subtext was the earlier election promise was before a budget had been figured out yet. But going from 1/12th to 1/4th is a pretty big jump.

And then a few years after that... when the company told the government $1.3 billion would not be enough money for the project to be financially viable... and that in order to sell electricity at all they needed the government to subsidise every single watt of power produced by the plant for the entire period that it operated... because it was going to run at a loss... that's when the government pulled all funding (except what had already been spent, which was a lot of money) and the whole project collapsed.

I tried to find references for all of that, but the website for the project is now a "domain for sale" page. All that's left is a few vague news articles which have conflicting information. But I've been following this for decades and the project you linked to was one of the ones that made it crystal clear to me that nuclear doesn't have a future unless something really big changes.

Who knows, perhaps if the government had been really committed to NuScale, they might've pushed through the pain and helped it succeed int order to become cheaper later. But the government wasn't willing to take that risk and apparently nobody else was either.

[-] asbestos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Hey, is Signal down? Ah, reactor exploded, destroying the datacenter along with the staff on prem
Jk, cool stuff

[-] Emi@ani.social 4 points 1 month ago

Would be cool if they pushed for SMRs in general which are better imo.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
172 points (94.3% liked)

Technology

55610 readers
2226 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS