US Regulator Rejects Bid To Boost Nuclear Power To Amazon Data Center (thehill.com) 12
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) blocked Amazon's bid to access more power from the Susquehanna nuclear plant for its Pennsylvania data center, citing grid reliability and consumer cost concerns. The Hill reports: In a 2-1 decision, the FERC found the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, failed to prove that the changes to the transmission agreement with Susquehanna power plant were necessary. The regulator's two Republican commissioners, Mark Christie and Lindsay See, outvoted Democratic chair Willie Phillips. The chair's two fellow Democratic commissioners, David Rosner and Judy Chang, sat out the vote. "Co-location arrangements of the type presented here present an array of complicated, nuanced and multifaceted issues, which collectively could have huge ramifications for both grid reliability and consumer costs," Christie wrote in a concurring statement.
In a dissenting statement, Phillips argued the deal with Amazon "represents a 'first of its kind' co-located load configuration" and that Friday's decision is a "step backward for both electric reliability and national security." "We are on the cusp of a new phase in the energy transition, one that is characterized as much by soaring energy demand, due in large part to AI, as it is by rapid changes in the resource mix," Phillips wrote.
Amazon purchased a 960-megawatt data center next to the Susquehanna power plant for $650 million earlier this year. Following the announcement, PJM sought to increase the amount of power running directly to the co-located data center. However, the move faced pushback from regional utilities, including Exelon and American Electric Power (AEP).
In a dissenting statement, Phillips argued the deal with Amazon "represents a 'first of its kind' co-located load configuration" and that Friday's decision is a "step backward for both electric reliability and national security." "We are on the cusp of a new phase in the energy transition, one that is characterized as much by soaring energy demand, due in large part to AI, as it is by rapid changes in the resource mix," Phillips wrote.
Amazon purchased a 960-megawatt data center next to the Susquehanna power plant for $650 million earlier this year. Following the announcement, PJM sought to increase the amount of power running directly to the co-located data center. However, the move faced pushback from regional utilities, including Exelon and American Electric Power (AEP).
Good (Score:3)
Seems like a good decision. Nuclear doesn't integrate well into grids, because it doesn't have the ability to rapidly alter output. Everything else has to work around it, and consumers are forced to pay whatever rip-off prices the nuclear subsidies force them to.
Re: (Score:2)
If your rationale is correct, then it would seem like a good idea to send more of the output of a nuclear plant to a constant, directly connected local load, and less to the public grid, whereas this decision does the opposite of that.
Re: (Score:3)
1) A datacenter is not a constant load. The load varies daily with use.
2) Grids are based on socializing the cost of infrastructure. Short circuiting this will not work.
You cannot get power from heavily subsidized nuclear generation, and then not pay the common infrastructure, while anybody else has to pay grid overhead, whatever the distance to the power plant of each customer is.
Especially Amazon does not need to be indirectly subsidized, and can afford to pay fair price, and should also reduce it's overl
Re: (Score:2)
1) A datacenter is not a constant load. The load varies daily with use. 2) Grids are based on socializing the cost of infrastructure. Short circuiting this will not work.
You cannot get power from heavily subsidized nuclear generation, and then not pay the common infrastructure, while anybody else has to pay grid overhead, whatever the distance to the power plant of each customer is.
Especially Amazon does not need to be indirectly subsidized, and can afford to pay fair price, and should also reduce it's overly hungry power consumption.
Another thing is what happens if Amazon, or Microsoft, or whoever, decides "Hmm, maybe this AI stuff isn't all that." and simply stops using the rebuilt plant, and says "Here ya go, Pennsylvania, we're outa here!" after PA restores the plant, "You have a nice shiny new reactor, we're not going to pay for it now, since we don't need it any more."
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like a good decision. Nuclear doesn't integrate well into grids, because it doesn't have the ability to rapidly alter output. Everything else has to work around it, and consumers are forced to pay whatever rip-off prices the nuclear subsidies force them to.
True on both points. A lot of people do not understand the tapdance that turbine based electricity generation has to perform in general, and nuc plants don't like sudden increases or decreases in output. Your second point is especially galling. Nuclear often turns out to be a great way to increase electricity bills for nothing. The nuc plant in Long Island that never opened, the Virgil Summer fiasco in South Carolina that gave South Carolina citizens a 9 billion dollar bill while never being finished.
Th
Reduce power. (Score:2)
Reduce your power needs.
There is no valid reason a datacenter should use 1GW.
Re: Reduce power. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
not sure how a datacenter should output lasers, there are no sharks inside.
AI God (Score:2)
YOUR electric rates will skyrocket due to demand from the Transhumanists to bring about their AI God.
Project Independence is what really got Nixon booted.
Re: (Score:2)
YOUR electric rates will skyrocket due to demand from the Transhumanists to bring about their AI God.
Well, the only thing that is not pathetic about that "AI God" is its energy consumption...
February (Score:2)
This will all get reversed around February, like it or not.