Saik0Shinigami

Microsoft is demanding US taxpayer provide loans to bring this plant online. It has been sitting there for 50 years…

... You understand so little.

Here you go.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/09/26/1104516/three-mile-island-microsoft/

In March, the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan got a loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office to the tune of over $1.5 billion to help restart.

https://www.constellationenergy.com/newsroom/2024/Constellation-to-Launch-Crane-Clean-Energy-Center-Restoring-Jobs-and-Carbon-Free-Power-to-The-Grid.html

Constellation signs its largest-ever power purchase agreement with Microsoft, a deal that will restore TMI Unit 1 to service and keep it online for decades; add approximately 835 megawatts of carbon-free energy to the grid; create 3,400 direct and indirect jobs and deliver more than $3 billion in state and federal taxes

Nowhere is it Microsoft demanding anything. It's the owners of the power plant itself that got the LOAN (loans get repayed btw... in case you've forgotten what the word means). And it's easily identified that the workforce increase in skilled labor means more taxpayers paying more money to taxes. And look at that! the added state and federal revenue will 2x the loan amount YEARLY.

So can you answer the fucking question now?

Oh, and you continue to ignore my point as well, so I’ll ask it again… If there are more nuclear plants… thus more production for things used to create and maintain nuclear plants. Will the cost to produce MORE nuclear energy go down?

Edit: to drill the point home though... let's say government bad, lets spend little as possible (which I'm generally whole-heartedly for)... 1.5 billion to make 3,400 high paying jobs for 30+ years... That's a fucking no brainer spend. You should WANT this spending. There's lots of shit to complain about with the government. Providing a loan that will be paid back that will make THOUSANDS of highly skilled jobs... This ain't it chief.

Yes, cost is going up because people expect mega corps to pay for their infrastructure investment lol

So you think that companies don't pay for electricity? That they're not part of the "profits" the electrical company has on the books?

Man... I wish I could just get free electricity for my company. Oh... and I pay higher rates at my commercial space for less usage than I do residentially.

But right! That's companies somehow getting some freebie from "the people".

Oh, and you continue to ignore my point as well, so I'll ask it again... If there are more nuclear plants... thus more production for things used to create and maintain nuclear plants. Will the cost to produce MORE nuclear energy go down?

show me when was last time that price of electric went down for the end consumer?

I didn't say price of electricity would go down. I was talking about the price to produce and maintain nuclear plants would go down.

Considering that electricity usage overall is on an upward trend, especially with things like electric cars becoming more and more mainstream. Also with things like inflation being a thing... It would be stupid to think that prices would ever straight up come down. However the cost to maintain more production could stifle/stunt how fast the prices increase.

Also... At my last house. Our electrical company rebated a not insignificant amount of money to each house based on usage for the year due to costs coming down for some stuff. So... about a year and a half or maybe 2 years ago for me personally?

Not sure why you'd expect prices to go down at all though when society/government is also pressuring the electrical companies to install "renewables" by the boatloads as well. There's costs associated with all that. The money has to come from somewhere.

I had this argument on nextdoor a few weeks back. Our local electric utility made some 500million in "profit". But have a mandate to be 60% renewable by 2028, and something like 80% by 2030, which 100% some time after that. If you do the math on how much the coal/nat oil plants produce, and estimate a cost for a solar farm... You realize that while it's a profit this year... it won't be a profit over time, virtually all (the math came out to like 93% of it) needs to get earmarked and put towards solar to get to those renewable mandate numbers. So yes. costs are going to keep going up if people like you act like nuclear getting spun up is a sin.

Edit: clarity

Edit: what is with this trend on lemmy the past few months of picking one specific sentence and ignoring the context of the rest of the fucking post? I even talk about "at scale". It's not hard to look at my post and think of supply/demand economics. Demand being super low because we only have handful of nuclear plants mean that a lot of suppliers just aren't around anymore. As demand goes up, in the short term market will demand price to go up. But eventually demand will continue to increase where there is a supply void and new production will come as long as other factors don't kill it. And Production at larger scales is ALWAYS more economical. This is literally econ 101 type shit.

sure nuclear would be great… but this aint for us ;)

Yes it is. Every plant that's live, means that things can be done more and more at scale, which drives down the price overall. In this narrow specific case, Microsoft will drive down the price which will make the already appealing nuclear (aside from NIMBY folk who will never give in because of their ignorance) even MORE appealing for baseload handling. Every plant, private or public will increase engineer knowledge and production of parts (increasing scale) which is better overall for nuclear.

And overall, these companies are going to increase their power load regardless. I'd rather new power production go to the better technology that won't actively poison the environment. Driving down the % of power generated by coal/oil should be universally applauded. Even if it's just new implementation of a large workload.

Serves a need. As in meets some other need. Which I've already addressed. Further I even addressed what SPECIFIC needs that it could possible be serving.

Religion isn’t the need. Social interaction and the feeling of belonging and belief are the needs. Religion can and does fill that for many.

Social interaction: https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/we-are-hard-wired-to-be-social-248746
Feeling of belonging: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/is-having-a-sense-of-belonging-important

I'm done with you. You're either purposefully obtuse, or a troll. It's people like you who ruin actual discussion with people who could actually be educated and turned away from the fictitious man in the sky. You make up shit to address that nobody said. You ignore EVERYTHING other people post just to post your own drivel. It's fucking useless and pointless. 3 seconds of googling could have saved yourself from looking like a fool.

Edit: you even go out of your way to somehow "break" the definition of clearly when in the previous fucking sentence I literally commit what amounts to the ultimate sin in nearly every abrahamic religion all while implying I somehow care about those religions. You're special, and not in the good way.

Remember when russia had a star gate and then the US broke theirs so they had to use the russian one? Ah yes.

SGC had the BC-304 at that point. They could have just grabbed a gate and DHD from any uninhabited planet.

It's actually a major plot flaw that Russia was given anything at all since there was no DHD at that point (and thus any DHD obtained would have overridden any other gate on the planet). Russia had no pull, other than jumping the gun and telling the public at large.

God... Why do I know all of this so readily?

Well that’s just not true, but ignoring that…

No. Let's not ignore that. If you're going to call someone a liar, own up to it. The comment that spawned this chain says verbatim

It serves a need.

It being "religion" and "a need" would imply another, different "need". Otherwise it would have been simpler and more direct to say something like "Religion is a need".

I didn’t scream anything

Coming back and repeating the same shit that I just addressed from the previous comment ... Constant repetition is literally someone shoving fingers in their ears and scream "LALALALALALA". You even did it again in this post by stating "no one needs religion" when I already addressed that and even agreed with that sentiment, but wanted to specifically caveat why religion would count for "It serves a need".

Nobody said that anyone "needs" religion. Quite the contrary. The statement is "religion fills needs" to put it another way. I even clarified and made it clear that if you can find something else that fills the needs for those people that you could likely replace religion. But for some reason you keep trucking forward with your comments acting like someone said something they didn't.

The only reason I could think of that you would want to argue against that position is if you believed it wasn’t true.

What the fuck logic is this? So I must believe that Religion is a need then? I'm atheist. I stated that outright from the beginning in my first post on this thread. Fuck "God", "Yahweh", "Mohammed", or any other god that you or anyone else believes in, they're all fake. I clearly don't believe that religion is a "need".

Nobody said it was. Just that it does meet some needs.

Until you somehow convince those who have those needs that religion isn't the correct way to meet those needs, you're not going to get anywhere screaming that religion isn't necessary. Those people firmly believe it is as it meets those needs for them and don't have something else to do so.

Religion isn't the need. Social interaction and the feeling of belonging and belief are the needs. Religion can and does fill that for many.

And before you attack me, I'm atheist.

Does no one care about power consumption?

It takes several SSDs to make up the capacity difference between an HDD.

I run 62 16TB HDDs. To make up the same capacity in SSDs I need 2-4x the bays. I don't know of any cheap systems that can hold ~250 bays of ssds.

So an SSD that may only take 1-3w all day... 2-4x that is already equal to the HDD regardless. You're not going to make any ROI metric here.

My guess is that it’s the easiest and cheapest way to set up “MFA”.

TOTP is cheaper.

SMS is actually expensive at scale. An example would be Signal, the messenger app that doesn't use SMS. They have overhead for sending backup codes/new account creation/Verification/etc... https://www.wired.com/story/signal-operating-costs/ 6 million a year. API integrations for SMS messages/codes are still like 1-5 cents per message.

TOTP's requirements? A reasonably accurate clock on the server, and storing the shared secret in a database.

A Karen and a cop can’t put someone in jail. It takes a prosecutor, a judge and a jury of her peers.

This is not factual. A cop can bring anyone into jail that they have just about any made up reason to.

It takes all those extra individual to put you in prison.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/jail-vs-prison-difference