Monday, September 25th 2023

Microsoft Plans to Build Nuclear-Powered Data Centers

Data center infrastructure is a complex matter. It requires shelter, cooling, and dedicated power generators that keep the servers running at full capacity and uptime. However, as these data centers can consume MegaWatts of power, it is becoming increasingly more work for hyperscalers like Meta, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and others to ensure proper power supply to their data centers. Today, according to the job listing by Microsoft, we learn that the Redmond giant is preparing its infrastructure for nuclear power to reduce data centers' dependency on the outside grid. According to the job listing, Microsoft is seeking a "Principal Program Manager, Nuclear Technology, who will be responsible for maturing and implementing a global Small Modular Reactor (SMR) and microreactor energy strategy."

The SMR and microreactor systems are smaller-scale than traditional nuclear reactors that many power plants are using today and are more manageable due to their sheer size. The power plants based on the aforementioned technology can reside right next to the data center. We are sure that Microsoft had calculated the return on investment (ROI) of creating its power grid, as its electricity consumption will only increase in the coming years as the infrastructure expands. P. Todd Noe, director of nuclear technologies engineering at Microsoft, shared a note regarding the listing, stating: "This is not just a job, it is a challenge. By joining us, you will be part of a global movement that is transforming the way we produce and consume energy. You will also have the chance to grow your skills, advance your career, and make an impact on millions of lives." Below, you can see an example SMR from NuScale.
NuScale SMR
Source: DatacenterDynamics
Add your own comment

49 Comments on Microsoft Plans to Build Nuclear-Powered Data Centers

#1
Hyderz
im no energy expert but wouldn't it take alot to cool the data center and the nuclear reactor?
if it does proceed lets hope they not build it in earthquake prone zone
Posted on Reply
#2
TGTF
will M$ be in charge of the SMR operations or take advantage of its power output ??
if its the latter...... "sure", but I am honestly worried if its the former !!!
Posted on Reply
#3
BlaezaLite
All those jokes are now coming true...:p:eek:
Posted on Reply
#5
Vayra86
What could possibly go wrong right, if we let datacenters avoid the general usage capacity of the power grid and all the climate-oriented limitations we impose there?

At least they're all about the environment eh... o_O
Posted on Reply
#6
Unregistered
We should focus on nuclear power by building more nuclear power plant at least till we find a better source of power.
#7
FoulOnWhite
Xex360We should focus on nuclear power by building more nuclear power plant at least till we find a better source of power.
Shame it was so badly demonised. At this time it is the cleanest form of energy, and as long as it is managed correctly is perfectly safe.
Posted on Reply
#8
Jism
Xex360We should focus on nuclear power by building more nuclear power plant at least till we find a better source of power.
Sure.

And at some point you need to store nuclear waste, which is radioactive for the next 30 to 60 years. Where do you store it you think?

And is MS paying for disposal of that nuclear waste too? Or do we just pass it through the enviroment?
Posted on Reply
#9
FoulOnWhite
JismSure.

And at some point you need to store nuclear waste, which is radioactive for the next 30 to 60 years. Where do you store it you think?

And is MS paying for disposal of that nuclear waste too? Or do we just pass it through the enviroment?
Does nuclear waste cause or have caused more of a problem to us than fossil fuels?
Posted on Reply
#10
DeathtoGnomes
AI has gone nuclear... :p

Next milestone is Heat-16.
Posted on Reply
#11
bug
JismSure.

And at some point you need to store nuclear waste, which is radioactive for the next 30 to 60 years. Where do you store it you think?

And is MS paying for disposal of that nuclear waste too? Or do we just pass it through the enviroment?
Yes, but even that is not new matter gone radioactive, it's the leftovers from the initial radioactive bars.
Plus, this is about SMRs, which use very little fissionable material. Ok, they don't output that much power either...

Whatever we get from renewables, is unsteady. If you have to have a backup for renewable, SMRs are just about the best candidate.
Posted on Reply
#12
kabarsa
JismSure.

And at some point you need to store nuclear waste, which is radioactive for the next 30 to 60 years. Where do you store it you think?

And is MS paying for disposal of that nuclear waste too? Or do we just pass it through the enviroment?
Waste can be reused ideally, there is a push for a long running idea to complete the nuclear fuel cycle, Rosatom tries to do it for some time and there is a progress. In the long run it should allow much better fuel availability to nuclear power plants
world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Beloyarsk-BN-800-fast-reactor-running-on-MOX
world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/MOX-fuel-tests-for-VVER-reactors-begin
rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/news/rosatom-starts-construction-of-unique-power-unit-with-brest-od-300-fast-neutron-reactor/
Posted on Reply
#13
LabRat 891
I will eat my damned hat
If AI/MI mass-infrastructure is what makes the mini/micro nuclear power concept
real.

It's been shelved tech for decades, and is literal 'boomer bait' for investments scams.

I mean, it does make sense, though...
Posted on Reply
#14
Fourstaff
So which one gets subsidised in this setup? Is it the datacenter is too expensive therefore cheap nuclear power to make it viable, or is it that nuclear power is too expensive and needs cheap datacenter to justify? Otherwise we might as well do it independently ...
Posted on Reply
#15
Unregistered
JismSure.

And at some point you need to store nuclear waste, which is radioactive for the next 30 to 60 years. Where do you store it you think?

And is MS paying for disposal of that nuclear waste too? Or do we just pass it through the enviroment?
Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's by far the best source of energy we have (excluding geothermal). As for nuclear waste it's a non problem, the amounts are so tiny and when stored properly (by governments not private companies) don't represent any issue.
#16
Wirko
BlaezaAll those jokes are now coming true...:p:eek:
You mean jokes about reactor control running on an operating system that has blue screens hidden inside?
Posted on Reply
#17
Chrispy_
These small reactors are pretty cool, in use at quite a few locations globally now.

So much (up to 60%) of the energy generated at power stations is lost in transmission. If you put the generation on site, you already get something like a 250% efficiency advantage simply by not having to transmit energy across the county/state/region...
Posted on Reply
#18
bug
Chrispy_These small reactors are pretty cool, in use at quite a few locations globally now.

So much (up to 60%) of the energy generated at power stations is lost in transmission. If you put the generation on site, you already get something like a 250% efficiency advantage simply by not having to transmit energy across the county/state/region...
You could do that, but then you'd be distributing fissionable uranium all over the place. Plus, the inefficiency come from transforming heat into electricity, it has little to do with the length of the lines after that.
The main advantage of SMRs, as I see it, is they don't use much fuel. Even in the case of a meltdown, they can't go Chernobyl.
Posted on Reply
#19
SOAREVERSOR
bugYou could do that, but then you'd be distributing fissionable uranium all over the place. Plus, the inefficiency come from transforming heat into electricity, it has little to do with the length of the lines after that.
The main advantage of SMRs, as I see it, is they don't use much fuel. Even in the case of a meltdown, they can't go Chernobyl.
Chernobyl was a freak accident. A perfect combination of a bad reactor design and Soviet dumbfuckery. Even then Chernobyl killed less people than stuff like hydro damn failures do. There's also the issue when you look at fossil fuel plants not only is global warming an issue but they spew toxins that kill people all over the place constantly.

When you compare nuclear to other options it's amazingly clean and safe.
Posted on Reply
#20
Jacky_BEL
Let them build one at their HQ first.
Posted on Reply
#21
Kaleid
Xex360Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's by far the best source of energy we have (excluding geothermal). As for nuclear waste it's a non problem, the amounts are so tiny and when stored properly (by governments not private companies) don't represent any issue.
Very few countries have this figured out though

14 juni 2023 — Finland is on the verge of becoming the first nation to bury spent nuclear fuel rods deep underground for the long term.
Posted on Reply
#22
Vayra86
JismSure.

And at some point you need to store nuclear waste, which is radioactive for the next 30 to 60 years. Where do you store it you think?

And is MS paying for disposal of that nuclear waste too? Or do we just pass it through the enviroment?
www.covra.nl/en/radioactive-waste/the-art-of-preservation/#:~:text=All%20radioactive%20waste%20of%20the,strongly%20interwoven%20since%20the%20beginning.

Its not a new thing, disposal of radioactive waste is pretty clean - you store it.
Posted on Reply
#23
Jacky_BEL
Xex360Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's by far the best source of energy we have (excluding geothermal). As for nuclear waste it's a non problem, the amounts are so tiny and when stored properly (by governments not private companies) don't represent any issue.
How does nuclear waste suddenly become tiny?
If you are going to distribute power generation , but have equal total power generation , then you will need the same amount of nuclear fuel and have the same amount of waste.
“All told, when it comes to nuclear waste, SMRs are roughly comparable with conventional pressurized water reactors, with potential benefits and weaknesses depending on which aspects you are trying to design for,” Kim said. “Overall, there appear to be no additional major challenges to the management of SMR nuclear wastes compared to the commercial-scale large LWR wastes.”
Argonne releases small modular reactor waste analysis report
Posted on Reply
#24
vandaminator
JismSure.

And at some point you need to store nuclear waste, which is radioactive for the next 30 to 60 years. Where do you store it you think?

And is MS paying for disposal of that nuclear waste too? Or do we just pass it through the enviroment?
They send it to poor countries, and now its their problem.
Posted on Reply
#25
Jacky_BEL
bugYes, but even that is not new matter gone radioactive, it's the leftovers from the initial radioactive bars.
Plus, this is about SMRs, which use very little fissionable material. Ok, they don't output that much power either...

Whatever we get from renewables, is unsteady. If you have to have a backup for renewable, SMRs are just about the best candidate.
SMR's do not use "very little fissionable material".
SMR's are about a tenth to a third the size of a common large scale commercial nuclear reactor.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines 'small' as under 300 MWe, and up to about 700 MWe as 'medium'
A subcategory of very small reactors – vSMRs – is proposed for units under about 15 MWe, especially for remote communities.

The idea of having a "vSMR in every single town" scares the hell out of me.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 21st, 2024 20:01 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts