It likely will.

Not immediately but in a decade or two.

Infrastructure investment is a good thing, and almost always strictly better than not having it.

estearum 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Infrastructure investment" is not fungible. There's either demand for this power where they're adding it, or there's not. If there is demand, then it's created by AI. If there's not (i.e. AI bubble pops), then there's excess capacity where we don't need it.

▲

taurath 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you or anyone else please take us through this likely outcome?

▲

gravypod 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the arguments for this would possibly be, if AI continues to be useful (generation demand skyrockets): Meta would possibly have a positive ROI for these investments which would lead to others copying the investment strategy and building more nuclear. If that happens a large portion of AI demand would become green(-ish) energy.

If AI demand lowers (generation demand plummets): Meta would have subsidized a bunch of nuclear reactors which would likely continue to produce power for 10 years - 50 years.

A big reason I have heard for lack of nuclear build out is the lack of starting capital but after they are built they are generally stable and maintenance is predictable.

An example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant. It may be turned down eventually but a 60 year runtime is pretty impressive for 60s engineering!

	▲	edmundsauto 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> A big reason I have heard for lack of nuclear build out is the lack of starting capital but after they are built they are generally stable and maintenance is predictable. I have also heard this, but given Meta's announcement is mostly in funding and extending the useful lifespan, doesn't that indicate without an infusion of capital, the ongoing operations are not cost effective?

▲

shimman 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm glad that individuals with no democratic control are allowed to declare large swaths of society to suffering because, maybe, in the future things might get better.

FWIW, it took nearly 150 years for commoners to benefit from the industrial revolution. The idea that I must suffer and my children must suffer and their children must suffer so some future plutocrat can get a fatter nut is pathetic.

	▲	cpursley 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, we could just give up and go back into the swamps that we crawled out off millions of years ago. But I'd rather have more clean power come online. Energy is EVERYTHING.

▲

s1mplicissimus 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not a good thing when said infrastructure produces ridiculously dangerous waste & fallout risk though.

	▲	7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	xvector 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"Fallout risk" and "dangerous waste risk" are such non-issues that have been so absurdly elevated in the public perception that the fear of them has caused far more deaths than the risks themselves.