Microsoft Targets Nuclear To Power AI Operations 52
According to the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft wants to use nuclear energy to power its artificial intelligence operations. And in order to help cut the red tape required to make that happen, Microsoft plans to use AI. From a report: A Microsoft team has spent months building an AI trained on nuclear regulations and licensing requirements to help the tech giant fill out all the applications it needs to build its own power plants. This typically takes years and millions, but Microsoft is urgently looking for more power to bring next-generation AI to life.
That's because the larger the model and the more capable it becomes, the more power it requires. Microsoft today reflects the sensibilities of its founder, Bill Gates, in that the company believes in carbon-neutral energy sources -- and, like Gates who himself invests in nuclear power innovation, the company seems to see more potential in nuclear than other renewable sources of energy.
"If we're going to do that carbon-free, we're going to need all the tools in the tool kit," Michelle Patron, Microsoft's senior director of sustainability policy, told the Journal.
That's because the larger the model and the more capable it becomes, the more power it requires. Microsoft today reflects the sensibilities of its founder, Bill Gates, in that the company believes in carbon-neutral energy sources -- and, like Gates who himself invests in nuclear power innovation, the company seems to see more potential in nuclear than other renewable sources of energy.
"If we're going to do that carbon-free, we're going to need all the tools in the tool kit," Michelle Patron, Microsoft's senior director of sustainability policy, told the Journal.
Get Yer Popcorn Out! (Score:2)
I bet this thread is gonna get interesting because it used 2 words or word groups that many on /. find offensive:
nuclear power
Microsoft
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear power
Microsoft
AI
There ftfy.
Microsoft used a current generative AI system, based on models which are specifically known for having "hallucinations", answers which look and feel plausible, are very difficult to spot in many circumstances but are in fact completely and utterly wrong and not based in reality, to fill out their safety critical regulatory documents upon which decisions about allowing them to proceed should be based. If you aren't triggered by that then you should probably hand in your nerd card.
Re: (Score:2)
it used 2 words or word groups that many on /. find offensive
No, it used 3... "Bill Gates"
Yeah right. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you build this in China. You can't build nuclear reactors in the US for less than $20 billion over budget and 20 years over schedule.
He is hoping to fix that. I don't think it is possible, one has only to look around here to see the abject fear of scary atoms. Maybe building in China will turn out to be the best solution, but at least he will have tried.
Re: (Score:2)
He is hoping to fix that. I don't think it is possible, one has only to look around here to see the abject fear of scary atoms.
While I can agree that there has been fear of nuclear power in the past that fear appears to be fading quickly.
In 1979 there was the Three Mile Island accident, which happened to coincide with a popular movie in theaters at the time where a reactor meltdown was part of the plot. Then a few years later came the meltdown at Chernobyl. In 2011 came the meltdown at Fukushima but that was at a nuclear power plant that was older than Chernobyl. How many people that vote in elections today remember Three Mile I
Re: (Score:2)
Chernobyl was an amazing series. You should watch it post-haste!
You're right, it was the KGB's never ending obsession with hiding flaws to make communism look better that was at fault.
Re: (Score:2)
'm thinking that the HBO/Sky mini-series on Chernobyl did a lot to remove fear of nuclear power. I really need to watch the series myself but from what I gathered the villain was the Soviet government, not nuclear power.
Highly recommend Chernobyl, the HBO series. It's very entertaining and sort of historical. And indeed it should mostly make you afraid of apparatchiks, presumably in any government.
China building nuclear power plants will likely get people interested in nuclear power in the USA. If nuclear power is "scary" then perhaps our adversaries having nuclear power while we go without is even more "scary".
More likely they are too clueless to care and America will soon no longer be number one while they sleep or binge on "reality" TV through it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you weren't versed in the nuclear world, Chernobyl was a fantastic miniseries. Great actors, terrific script that sorta/kinda held to historical fact, and a great way of framing the most horrible of moments with individuals in the middle of those moments, rather than viewing them from miles overhead. That's one of the few shows we've watched over the last few years that I'd consider buying a box set for so I can rewatch anytime without fear of some network wank yanking it down when we're in the midd
Re: (Score:2)
You're partially right about the series 'Chernobyl' - they make no excuses for the absolutely reckless decision to hide a severe safety design issue with the RBMK reactor, while successfully propagandizing even the operators of the reactors to instill the idea that it's impossible for an RBMK to explode, to the point of arguing that it happened after it happened and chunks of flaming graphite were laying in the parking lot. Then, of course, comes the cover up and CYA-bureucrats pointing fingers and denial
Re:Yeah right. (Score:4, Informative)
In the last 20 years, America has had three nuclear projects. The Summer plant in SC was canceled after bleeding $3B in red ink. Watts Bar and Vogtle were completed far over schedule (Watts Bar took more than 40 years) and were financial debacles.
Meanwhile, China has 50 nukes in operation, 22 under construction, and 70 more planned.
Re:Yeah right. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the last 20 years, America has had three nuclear projects. The Summer plant in SC was canceled after bleeding $3B in red ink. Watts Bar and Vogtle were completed far over schedule (Watts Bar took more than 40 years) and were financial debacles.
Meanwhile, China has 50 nukes in operation, 22 under construction, and 70 more planned.
Exactly. We can't do big things in the west anymore. Can you imagine trying to build the interstate highway system, or the transcontinental railway today? Could never be done.
I'm still blown away by that timelapse of the Chinese building a new hospital in 10 days at the start of COVID. How far do you think we would get in 10 days? LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still blown away by that timelapse of the Chinese building a new hospital in 10 days at the start of COVID. How far do you think we would get in 10 days? LOL
In ten days? You might be able to get your initial permit in ten days. Maybe. Though you'd have to fight to get it that quickly. We've somehow become so enamored with our bureaucracy that we've let it sap up a massive percentage of our concentration and useful waking hours. Ain't no AI gonna cut through that diamond hardened red tape.
Re: (Score:1)
We can't do big things in the west anymore.
Sure we can - see SpaceX.
Amazing things can happen when we move away from a government model to a private model with government sponsorship. That's how we built the transcontinental railway.
The only things we have to worry about is corruption in that model (cost plus contracts, sweetheart deals to inferior suppliers, etc) and excessive bureaucratic meddling (all things nuclear).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Last Wednesday China put the worlds first SMR into commercial operation. The Shidaowan HTR-PM 210MWe reactor began generating base load power on Dec. 6. Not development. Not testing. Commercial, revenue generating power operation.
The West has been blathering about SMRs for at least 20 years now. We have none even under construction. And the thing is this Chinese SMR isn't some great leap forward in technology: there is nothing in that system that the West hasn't already done in either research or co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The West has been blathering about SMRs for at least 20 years now. We have none even under construction.
The US Navy has been building SMRs for 70 years. There could be a dozen of these SMRs under construction right now. My guess is if the fit hits the shan, the balloons go up, or whatever, then we'd see these same reactors put to use in producing power for factories, military bases, and all kinds of vital infrastructure. They'd certainly end up being used for new surface warships, not limited to only aircraft carriers as they are now.
On top of this are prototype nuclear reactors being built for NASA to ena
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Naval reactors use much more highly enriched fuel, which is not available for civilian use due to proliferation issues. Also, it's surrounded by sea, and doesn't need to be commercially viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Naval reactors use much more highly enriched fuel, which is not available for civilian use due to proliferation issues. Also, it's surrounded by sea, and doesn't need to be commercially viable.
When your country becomes a bitch to other countries the proliferation issues will fade.
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to avoid that would be energy independence. We don't have much uranium, but we have about 20x more wind power available than we actually need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The US Navy has been building SMRs for 70 years. There could be a dozen of these SMRs under construction right now. My guess is if the fit hits the shan, the balloons go up, or whatever, then we'd see these same reactors put to use in producing power for factories, military bases, and all kinds of vital infrastructure.
Reactors that are completely ill-suited for use on land. The AEC screwed commercial nuclear in the US by demanding exactly this; it is what we have today, except not using HEU, which is cost prohibitive anyway. Sub reactors are great if you have an unlimited supply of fissile, and are submerged in the ocean where loss of coolant is effectively impossible. Scaling production of such reactors is meaningless though if we can't fuel them or put them on land, and we can't use HEU for commercial shipping.
Conventi
Re: (Score:2)
The West has been blathering about SMRs for at least 20 years now. We have none even under construction.
The US Navy has been building SMRs for 70 years.
Not commercially viable ones, it hasn't. Commercial success is not a requirement. It's a bit like saying that the US Navy knows how to run a cruise line successfully because it operates ships, or an airline because it has F-14s. What is important,in reality, is if SMRs fir civilian use make economic sense.
Re: (Score:1)
You can't build nuclear reactors in the US for less than $20 billion over budget and 20 years over schedule.
And that's even if you preemptively factor in an extra $20 billion over budget and 20 years over schedule. Then it's an extra $20 billion and 20 years over that.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you build this in China. You can't build nuclear reactors in the US for less than $20 billion over budget and 20 years over schedule.
What makes you think China doesn't build massively over budget and behind schedule? They don't release much info, but they've had a couple of reactors built with financial partnerships with the west and other Asian businesses and when that has happened we get a glimpse into how well that works over there, and it's not pretty either. E.g. Taishan nuclear plant suffering a 70% cost overrun, a 100% schedule overrun, and even then after startup it was shutdown due to quality control issues and spent a further 2
Alternate source ... (Score:3)
yahoo.com [yahoo.com]
Couldn't have said it better (Score:1)
"Microsoft today reflects the sensibilities of its founder, Bill Gates" - both have dumb-ass disease.
Bill came by the office; Said to use nuclear (Score:2)
because he's so invested in getting it to work.
Wait...MS wants to build nuclear powerpants? (Score:4, Funny)
This brings new meaning to "blue screen of death."
Re: (Score:2)
Blue cloud of death, or if the containment is breached, blue beam of death.
More seriously, i guess that the thought of turning the AI off on calm nights doesn't appeal to him.
On that note near the end of November the wind output from the windfarms serving the BPA went to zero for two days straight. During the first day solar output was 11% of nameplate, the second day it was 7%. Ouch. Gloomy anticyclone indeed. So it's easy to see why he's looking at nuclear power for locations that don't have hydropower.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they planning on running the nuclear control systems on Windows?
Re: (Score:2)
cyborg AI (Score:2)
The answer is clearly cyborg AI. AI needs to be efficient like our own brains.
https://www.engadget.com/resea... [engadget.com]
Can't imagine what that datacenter looks like.
Oh sure, it'll be fine (Score:2)
It'll be fine. I mean, Microsoft and nuclear power, what could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
The blue in the blue screen is caused by Cherenkov radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
patch tuesday to the rescue
Wasn't this part of the storyline in 'The Matrix'? (Score:2)
Nuclear power , humans, AI
I41 (Score:2)
There you see it folks, it's undeniable. The Large Language Models are here, and they will soon be in every fact of our lives.
And I for one welcome our nuclear powered Artificial Intelligence overlords...
Hmmm (Score:2)
maybe rethink this technology (Score:2)
The Matrix? (Score:1)
"The human body generates more bio electricity than a 120 volt battery and over 25000 BTUs of body heat. Combined with a form of fusion the machines had found all the energy they would ever need." -- Morpheus
More power, more power, MORE POWER! (Score:2)
Do we really need to keep pursuing better energy suckers at this point in our development? All the power being thrown at these things, and they can barely hold a conversation thread together. I don't think throwing more and more power at them should be the goal. There's gotta be some form of refactoring coming for these LLMs that will increase efficiency, but all we ever hear is how we need bigger, better, faster, more power consumption. I know it's at the top of the hype cycle, but is there any real, pract
good one (Score:2)
WA is closing or has closed most if not all of its nuclear plants. Maybe Microsoft would like to take over the Hanford Reservation and be in charge of the trillion-dollar cleanup there.