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.

…

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    3 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·
      3 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?