The Owner of Three Mile Island Is Turning the Nuclear Power Plant Back on to Fuel Microsoft's AI Operations
In this latest skirmish between the future and its enemies, the future won.

We're back!
Today Bloomberg reports that Constellation Energy Corp., the owner of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, plans to turn back on one of the plant's shuttered reactors. Microsoft has agreed to purchase 100 percent of the plant's output for the next 20 years to feed its power-hungry AI operations.
Constellation had closed one of Three Mile Island's reactors in 2019. But Microsoft's surging power demands, combined with tax breaks from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, have encouraged the company to spend the $1.6 billion needed to turn it back on.
Three Mile Island is infamously the site of a partial reactor meltdown in 1979. That incident led to the permanent shutdown of one of its two reactors and helped fuel a regulatory crackdown on the nuclear industry. Only two new commercial nuclear power plants have opened this century.
The same anti-growth, anti-progress environmentalists that succeeded in halting the growth of the nuclear industry in the wake of Three Mile Island have in recent months turned their sights on AI. They've labeled the power-hungry industry an "energy hog" and "a threat to climate change."
It's an irony, then, that degrowth environmentalism's past enemy is seeing a revival to fuel its latest one.
The general public shouldn't be so worried. That AI is boosting demand for power is good news, not bad.
The fact is the future requires power and the plants needed to generate it. That we need new power plants at all is evidence that new things are happening and new things are being built.
Indeed, a few wonks and scholars argue the slowdown in economic growth since the 1970s can be primarily attributed to the war on new electrical power-generating capacity. If that's true, turning power plants back on and reviving nuclear generally could reverse that trend.
To be sure, tax credits and subsidies are bad. But libertarians can still cheer the reopening of Three Mile Island. In this skirmish between the future and its enemies, the future won.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yeah. The worst nuclear disaster in U.S. history, where no one died, or even was injured.
There have been several fatalities in the US nuclear industry due to radiation exposure.
And one Incredible Hulk.
Does that include Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin (Manhattan Project oopses).
Not in a commercial power plant, and none recently. Most were either experimental labs or improperly calibrated medical devices in hospitals.
"...have encouraged the company to spend the $1.6 billion needed to turn it back on."
$1.599999 billion went to bureac-Rats, regulators, and lawyers!!! 39 cents went to engineers and smart people who know things! THIS is why Chernoble happened!!! USA, meet USSR!!!
Nonsense. There was a lot of work to do.
The refrigerator in the break room needed to be replaced, it was so rank, and all of the washers in the rest rooms' faucets leaked and needed to be replaced by a unionized plumber.
-dk
This may get a reaction.
Looks like you Fonda joke there.
Yes. Don’t have a meltdown.
What is the core issue here?
Spare the rod, spoil the child. They may need a moderator to get folks to accept it.
You do SNOT need to graph-shit before the graphite pencils shits way DEEP down into our brains in Spain, where the rain stays mainly in the plain, and the core meltdown does SNOT melt ALL the way down into the Earth's core coprolite-water nuke-reactor, which will cause us ALL to DIE-DIE-DIE, becaue YOU stubbornly REFUSED to recycle YOUR used toilet paper!!! THAT is EXACTLY why the cute baby seals DIE in horrible agony!!!
This joke will have half the life of your last one.
with tax breaks from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act
Tax the Poor!
'Til there are no poor no more?
Restarting a power reactor that has been down for five years will be quite expensive and difficult to pull off. Time will tell if they can actually pull it off.
Really? Explain, in detail.
Watts Bar is a good example of how costs get out of hand when construction gets delayed. I believe the additional costs would be similar to getting a decommissioned plant back on line again:
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2016/feb/03/cost-watts-bar-reactor-rises-200-million-47-billio/
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move forward with more projects like TMI. A real shame that we dropped the ball with nukes in this country, it’ll be expensive to catch up.
They have zero licensed reactor operators and I doubt their training simulator has been fully maintained. The bulk of their staff has moved on to other jobs. They likely have stopped doing maintenance on the equipment that they thought would never be used again. Depending on the current status of their license, there might be a lengthy process to get a new active license. These are some examples.
Lots of mights and maybes.
The bulk of their staff has moved on to other jobs
The ones that aren’t still in court, mind you
You know who else had an unlicensed nuclear accelerator?
The mad scientist in "Back to the Future"?
I want my "Mr. Fusion", and I want shit NOW!!!
There was once a Boy Scout that made a neutron source. His mom’s property later became a Superfund site due to his project.
The Libyans!
“They have zero licensed reactor operators and I doubt their training simulator has been fully maintained…”
Fuck you with a wire-wrapped broom-stick, asshole:
“What’s the Death Toll of Nuclear vs Other Energy Sources?”
[…]
“There have been three major accidents at nuclear power plants since their inception in 1951. These accidents are:
Three Mile Island in the U.S.
Chernobyl in Ukraine
Fukushima in Japan
[…]
With the caveat that no loss of human life should be considered acceptable, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that 31 people died in the three months following the Chernobyl accident. Two of these deaths were due to the initial explosion, while the remaining 29 were first responders who succumbed to acute radiation sickness (ARS).
As for the Fukushima accident—while the flood and earthquake claimed 20,000 lives, only one person is officially recognized to have died because of radiation exposure. That said, an additional 573 indirect deaths are attributed to the disaster, mostly due to evacuation stress.
And what about the deaths at Three Mile Island? Zero…”
https://www.engineering.com/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources/
Make that fuck you with a running, rusty chain-saw, you pathetic excuse for humanity.
If they don't meet all regulatory requirements, they aint making no neutrons. I have zero control over that.
Also, I am one of a handful of people in the US with actual experience restarting a shutdown reactor.
Make that fuck you with a barb-wire-wrapped broom-stick, steaming pile of watermelon shit.
It will be a blast.
It'll be totally rad.
Please forgive my profound ignorance but is there a way to safely destroy nuclear waste, and if so, how because if you can rid nuclear waste, then anti-nukes nut cases might shut up.
It's called a breeder reactor.
No they won’t.
Breeder reactor or reduce waste by reprocessing.
Breeder reactor? You homophobe!
Isotopic Hand Maid's Tale!
Same sex reactors want to split things in fissionary position.
It’s a fusion of bad ideas.
Maybe, but they still want to boron.
Well, I’m gonna split.
Given the context, you should probably SCRAM.
We spent billions on Yucca Mountain to store the waste until Senator Harry Reid put a stop to it.
And anyone who has a nuke in their electric utilities’ footprint is paying to store the spent fuel on site.
Borrowing from the Environmentalism playbook: categorize anti-nuclear activist as a (carbon emitting!) waste byproduct of the nuclear industry and destroy them.
What’s good for the goose is good for environmentalism’s crazy pet cat ladies.
is there a way to safely destroy nuclear waste
We can reprocess it (like France) and exponentially reduce the volume of the waste and its radioactivity. Then storage requirements are absolutely economic and reasonable.
IIRC, the issue is one that goes back to the Cold War, where we agreed not to reprocess in a good will act with the Soviets (I believe plutonium is one of the byproducts). Slick Willy’s administration proposed bringing reprocessing back in the 90s, but it didn’t go anywhere.
Over the years it’s become a sacred cow of environmentalists not to reprocess, but they really don’t have a leg to stand on scientifically.
"like France"
How DARE you suggest that the US could ever learn anything from France!
Seriously, would that the US adopt France's mostly nuclear electric power system. But nobody here would endorse that. France's system is government owned. There aren't a lot of things that government does better than the private sector, but generating electricity is one of them.
FOAD, steaming pile of lefty shit.
If people sign enough petitions to put a nuclear plant in their back yard, then they will get that. If they don't, then they're waiting for someone else's backyard to be available.
If people sign enough petitions to put a nuclear plant in their back yard, then they will get that.
No grasshopper, they will not.
Yes they will. The vast majority of the cost are capital - and all of those depend hugely on how much pushback/bribes/plans/delays/etc the local community creates re the construction/operations/decommissioning/disposal of the plant
It wasn’t really TMI that stopped nuclear plant construction. Costs went totally out of control DURING the 1970’s. Utilities had no ability to project or control those costs. The cost overruns were 400% or more and getting worse – compared to 100% overruns in the late 60’s. Which meant the projections that those utilities made re rate increases were not credible and customers were due for a big surprise. And then TMI throws its wrenches in the works and adds one more big bit of uncertainty as to utility incompetence. TMI was more a last straw thing – and utilities were totally ok blaming TMI for their own incompetence.
So no matter how many petitions, people won’t get a reactor in their backyard?
FOAD, lying pile of lefty shit.
It was largely high interest rates back then. The low interest rates of the past decade that might have resulted in more nuclear plants being built didn't produce much because fracking and other advanced fossil fuel recovery techniques made natural gas so inexpensive that the bottom line was that it was more economical to make gas the main power generator in the US.
High interest rates created an additional financing issue after TMI. Volcker became Fed Chairman a few months after TMI and his changes made bonds more expensive both with new issuance and rollovers.
Agree that energy projects with high capital costs up front will be more uncompetitive during times of high interest rates and long construction times.
What that means for nuclear is that they just squandered their best window over the last couple decades.
FOAD, lying pile of lefty shit.
Fungus actually metabolizes nuclear waste, but its metabolism I think is slower than the waste is produced. I don’t know that part with certainty, only that fungus consumes nuclear/radiation byproducts.
Perhaps we might engineer something in a lab.
A genetically engineered nuclear mushroom sounds like a terrible idea, for any number of reasons I won't spore you with.
Well, first step is to hire a bald, luggage stealing loony tranny to handle all the waste…….
Ah, yes, the disaster that wasn't.
The disaster could easily be said to be the curtailment of the nuclear industry that followed.
The thing about 'environmentalists' is that most of the big names in the game are all watermelons that just view environmental policy as a means to put an end to capitalism writ large. They honestly don't give a fuck about 'the environment'.
Yes, nuclear waste is 'bad' but at some point (barring innovative success in fusion) enviro-wackos are going to need to choose between CO2 and nuclear waste to continue living in the first world. Returning to the Middle Ages is not a real option.
Frankly, CO2 is a necessary trace gas anyway but the environmentalists are crazy and think it's pollution so here we are. Solar isn't any more renewable than oil, either, so people trying to sell that scam are just straight lying to your face.
^+1
And solar and wind generate megatons more waste than nuclear does. It's not like those giant turbine blades are recyclable into anything, nor are solar panels. And both have a max lifespan of ~20 years. And Vogtle 4 puts out enough power to replace a thousand square miles of windmills.
I'd really like my western landscapes back.
And yes, environmentalists who think there being more plant food in the air and longer growing seasons are fucking retarded.
Not all waste is created equal, but solar panel recycling waste is chemical waste. Had to point that out to a few enviro-wackos and they simply don't believe it which tells you all you need to know about the typical 'environmentalist'.
They can supposedly be recycled, but at massive cost and questionable efficiency and just about none get recycled in the first place because of that despite the relative rarity of the elements involved.
Sorry but a meltdown of a nuclear power plant is a disaster. However, the best estimate by epidemiologists of the number of fatalities among those exposed is zero.
"choose between CO2 and nuclear waste"
Any informed person would choose nuclear waste. However, with half the country brainwashed into thinking that climate change is a hoax, and the fossil fuel industry having veto power over one of the two political parties, it is unlikely that we will ever see much more in the way of nuclear power being developed in the US. Utilities aren't interested and the public isn't interested.
Where is Jane Fonda to tell us what to do?
I heard she popped up somewhere in China.
Not great, not terrible.
I didn't know it was a fucking competition. Actually I did know that.
Just an exhibition, not a contest. So please, no wagering.
I’m told it is the equivalent of a chest x-ray.
Somebody call Ja Rule.
I’m not interested in hearing The Hanoi Maiden’s Tale.
Nice.
I saw her in a movie called barberella recently.
Jesus Christ, the 60s really musta been sumthin’.
What isn't being discussed here is AI power requirements are more than just electricity, regardless of how it is produced. Water for cooling is an issue that needs to be addressed. I saw an article last week or so regarding the huge amount of cooling water needed. Moreover, there is research indicating underground water overdraft is causing many issues beyond sink holes.
Just a thought.
Could always pump the water back into the ground.
"Just a thought."
First, your claim is missing a cited source.
And then, we've had watermelons show up here trying to poison the well many times; did you think it wouldn't be noticed?
Yeah, but it's not evaporative cooling. They just run the same water (typically with an antifreeze additive so it's easier on the pipes and has better thermal properties than plain water) around in circles, between where the chillers make it cold, and the computers make it hot again. So you only need to fill the system once. It's not like it's a constant drain from the aquifer.
There are no water shortages in the eastern US. There are huge water shortages in the western US and no political will to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to move water to where it is "needed". Personally, I don't see how massive subsidies for agriculture (the main water user) are a good idea.
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
There are government-created 'water shortages', but a steaming pile of lefty shit like you would ignore that, wouldn't you?
FOAD, asshole.
The beast needs power.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/09/omnipresent-ai-cameras-will-ensure-good-behavior-says-larry-ellison/
Microsoft has agreed to purchase 100 percent of the plant's output for the next 20 years to feed its power-hungry AI operations.
We need a nuclear reactor to power a chatbot?
Clippy hungry. Need electrons.
I don't normally oppose nuclear power, but when I do, it's because we're providing a
n unknownMicrosoft-brand intelligence with a relatively unlimited, self-contained, and destructive source of power.As far as I can tell, nuclear power plants just aren’t economically viable without massive subsidization. I don’t say that couldn’t change if, for instance, the regulatory environment changed, but I’ll be convinced when I see it actually happen. Dealing adequately with the wastes is also a hurdle, although perhaps not an insurmountable one. I don’t think that “we really, really want a safe source of limitless cheap power so the future has to provide it for us” is actually a sound argument. It’s entirely possible that there just isn’t any other physically and economically viable source of power with a good enough EROEI to maintain society indefinitely in the way to which we’ve become accustomed. No law of nature mandates that the universe has to give us what we want. Maybe nuclear will work out as a fossil fuel replacement and maybe it won’t, but the idea that some particular technology represents “the future” seems more like religious dogma than reason.
We (America) are literally not allowed to recycle nuclear waste, which is an entirely viable process. And if the regulatory environment were sane, many of the construction and operating costs would become significantly more manageable. I'll grant that as someone in an adjacent industry I am somewhat biased, but I held the views I do long before I took my current position. Yes, it takes effort to build and run nuclear plants safely, but it's nowhere near the superhuman and supergenius task that popular opinion makes it out to be.
People apparently don't recall that nuclear plants were running on 1950's technology and human labor. If they are 'impossible to run' today it's clearly not a tech or human issue since we've done it for decades on frankly ancient obsolete technology.
I’m willing to believe it could happen in a different regulatory environment, but I am really skeptical of assertions of a technology that has never been viable without subsidies suddenly becoming so if x y z happens. I don’t doubt it could be cheaper, but I do doubt it would be cheap enough while remaining safe enough to attract enough investment to provide a major source of power in the US without subsidization. Like I said, I’ll believe it when I see it. Be nice if it worked. From what I’ve seen, recycling the waste also seems uneconomic, so not sure that really helps.
We (America) are literally not allowed to recycle nuclear waste, which is an entirely viable process.
Unlike all the fake recycling we do to appease the other environmental Gods, plastic, glass, paper, concrete, aluminum... it's one of the few processes where you actually, unequivocally, get more energy or the desired output than you put in.
"nuclear power plants just aren’t economically viable without massive subsidization"
That is because it is cheaper to burn natural gas. And the US is producing more natural gas than any country has ever produced in history. Ban fracking and nuclear suddenly becomes economically viable. (I oppose banning fracking.)
Maybe, but even if it becomes cheaper than gas that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be economically viable. If it’s more expensive to produce than its value to the economy, it’s not going to be viable even in the absence of natural gas plants. It’s entirely possible that economics will dictate a lower-energy environment in the future.
It's also entirely possible that watermelons like you can use government power to avoid better alternatives.
Fuck off and die, shit bag.
"...That is because it is cheaper to burn natural gas..."
But lefty watermelons like you don't like it, right, asshole?
I would prefer to see new reactors build using current technology. Restarting a 50 year old reactor seems kind of silly. Wonder what the coast difference is for this option.
What’s the cost of 30 years of lawsuits and harassment by regulators before you can even begin construction? If restarting an ancient reactor avoids most of that because they already went through it, it probably saves not only more than a new reactor would cost, it would even save more than rebuilding the old reactor exactly to the inefficient and antiquated old design cost - including even restarting the old factories that made the exact materials used 50 years ago.