Pepperidge Farms must’ve met my dad a few years back.

  • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 hours ago

    For what it’s worth many data centers include their own power generation. Would be a boon for modular nuclear reactors if they were ready and if the us wasn’t so shy about nuclear. I wonder if other countries are having this issue? Like is there a big pushback to data centers in china, India, UAE, or Singapore? If not then what’s the difference and how are they managing data center development?

    • CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      47 minutes ago

      Kevin’s data center is going to run on natural gas generators in a valley which already suffers from horrible inversions every year. The Wasatch front valley has some of the worst air quality in the world during the winter.

      Nuclear is too expensive for the capitalists building these. They’d rather pollute than pay more money for nuclear.

      • BurgerBaron@quokk.auOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 minutes ago

        In this case I’m referring to the Wonder Valley AI data centre campus just to be clear since I wasn’t in OP, it’s proposed for northwestern Alberta, Canada. Near Grande Prairie. He’s got multiple on the go.

      • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Man modular nuclear would be so good right now, in some cases we could even drop them into decommissioned gas and coal plants aka use the heat exchanger and turbines. Within reason it would be nice to see them fast tracked for this.

    • someguy3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I think the small modular reactor concept is overdone. Small doesn’t mean cheap, and cheap is what we want.

      • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        The small size isn’t specifically what is intended to make SMRs cheap; it’s the reproducibility. Not every location will be suitable for gigawatt scale reactors, but smaller reactors, made of components you can throw on a rail car, will bring cost down as production scales up. And there would likely be more reactors built, since there’s more flexibility in application.

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          58 minutes ago

          … Allow me to amend my statement to what was obvious. Small and reproducable doesn’t mean cheap electricity, and cheap electricity is what we want.

          • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            52 minutes ago

            I would take carbon free electricity over cheaper electricity any day, but yes those with the money buying power generation want primarily the cheapest energy.

            • someguy3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              47 minutes ago

              omg how are you guys misreading this so much.

              Small and reproducable doesn’t mean cheap electricity when compared to typical large nuclear reactors, and cheap electricity is what we want.

              • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                34 minutes ago

                Large nuclear reactors scare VC with large upside cost and delayed construction so they don’t get built. Known and tested SMR’s pretty much have that covered. I’ll accept clean energy over cheaper.