The Department of Energy is weighing a $1.6 billion loan guarantee for a plan to reopen the Three Mile Island nuclear plant with Microsoft as its sole customer.

The owner of the shuttered Three Mile Island nuclear plant is pursuing a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee to help finance its plan to restart the Pennsylvania facility and sell the electricity to Microsoft to power data centers, according to details of the application shared with The Washington Post. Get a curated selection of 10 of our best stories in your inbox every weekend.

The taxpayer-backed loan could give Microsoft and Three Mile Island owner Constellation Energy a major boost in their unprecedented bid to steer all the power from a U.S. nuclear plant to a single company.

Microsoft, which declined to comment on the bid for a loan guarantee, is among the large tech companies scouring the nation for zero-emissions power as they seek to build data centers. It is among the leaders in the global competition to dominate the field of artificial intelligence, which consumes enormous amounts of electricity.

…

  • CethinEnglish
    21·
    2 months ago

    So name one.

    As we’ve established, you can’t. You’re not a serious person and so I’m not going to waste any more of my time on you.

    You’re like every other nuclear bro I’ve interacted with; no amount of evidence, logic, or facts will persuade you because you didn’t use those to come to your present position. You’re a Japanese holdout, still flighting the war long after your side lost.

    Read the paper. I’m not the unserious one. You will ignore all other information because anti-nuke must be right. You’ve cited Wikipedia, and that’s it. Fuck off dude. You aren’t the one in the right here.

    Oh, but it’s regulations, you say. That pesky red tape that I can’t cite even once even though it definitely 100% is because that’s what my feels tell me.

    Literally every piece of it increases cost. Do you disagree with that statement? If you do, which red tape has ever decreased cost? Do you think there aren’t regulations on nuclear? I don’t need to cite any specific one because it’s obvious they’re being created and it’s obvious they’d increase cost. Only someone who wants to sea-lion would ask to cite specific regs.

    Check out the edit above. I wasn’t fast enough for you apparently, but nuclear can decrease over time. The US is the extreme of costs increasing. Why would this happen if knowledge and technology advances if some external force isn’t acting upon the price?

    I like that you keep asking for evidence, I provide it, you cite Wikipedia, then you ignore all other information and act like others are being ignorant. You want anti-nuke to make sense. It does, if you accept that regulations are increasing price and that’s good. It doesn’t if you think artificially increasing the price is bad.

    You have answered zero questions and have not responded to any information I’ve provided, yet you act like you’re winning this debate. You look like a fool.

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      2 months ago

      I don’t need to cite any specific one because it’s obvious they’re being created and it’s obvious they’d increase cost.

      You look like a fool.

      Maybe one day you’ll come to appreciate the irony on display here but I somehow doubt it.

      Last thing and then I’m done with you:

      To recap, you asserted that red tape and regulations are preventing nuclear from being competitive.

      OK, fair enough. I asked for just a single example of a regulation that could be done away with and that would reduce costs in a meaningful way as it’s pretty much your entire argument.

      You haven’t been able to do this.

      You lose, I’m done with you for real now. Have a nice weekend.

      • CethinEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        I asked for just a single example of a regulation that could be done away with and that would reduce costs in a meaningful way as it’s pretty much your entire argument.

        I’m not an expert. I posted a scholarly article showing this was the case. You promptly ignored it. You lose. You want proof that you wouldn’t accept anyway. I could waste my time citing regulations, and you’d just say that has a purpose, which it does is it required? I’m not wasting my time when you don’t accept the premise (until now) that regulations are increasing the costs artificially. This is done by groups with a goal to keep competition out and increase the price of their product. Why would you support that?