C
The headline makes no sense to me and the article crosses over 2 problems in the energy transition.
Microsoft is only involved in purchasing the power, not the facility itself. In my understanding, that means that Constellation is the only party here involved in the government backed loan. Noting also that the loan itself is not malicious, nor is its use to restart the facility - if nuclear facilities should not be funded or have any special tax status then that should have been considered in the government's legislation.
The 2nd part about the power from the plant going to grid, and not to Microsoft's data centres directly is a known issue which close to all companies exploit by buying green certificates which I understand are currently done monthly in some areas. That means we do not trace that each electron provided to a user was from renewables, instead we aggregate that a company (via purchasing "green" certificates) shows that enough "green" electricity, anywhere on a connection, was produced to cover their usage for that month. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, their data centres, or this facility in general but is currently being dealt with. It will be clear in the power purchasing agreement how much power Microsoft will purchase from the facility directly and how it is delivered.
Am I missing something?
And no, I don't think nuclear power is overly helpful given the exorbitant cost, time and waste aspects
Early adopters will profit the most, it's a non-issue.
Jesus, Merino & Kiwior?
Yeah if we were 2-0 down and Hakimi did that in the box, I'd be spewing!
Martinelli's confidence must be taking a beating at this rate.
How much longer does ETH have to turn this around?
While I understand the sentiment, such action doesn't match the long term goals of the bloc to unify the continent. Another solution needs to be found to ensure single bad actors cannot hold up actions which severely impact the remaining stakeholders - I have no idea how it could be done though.
Xoxo, Another useless armchair observer
...just mayyyyyybe it's beecause they sell the uniform supply contract and make a lot of money for their budget from it? Dunno.
This is not correct for devices being sold to the EU at least. Part of the amendment to the Radio Equipment Regulation outlines the exact standards for power delivery that must be used, and that interfaces which are capable of being charged @ > 15W must "ensure that any additional charging protocol allows for the full functionality of the USB Power Delivery...".
For data transfer, I don't see the point and future improvements to USB will come from industry in future.
The only way around this is with a wireless charging protocol, but manufacturers are moving away from that it appears.
True, but ensuring this is done on a shorter time scale (e.g. hourly) would take a lot of the green washing out of the certificate system IMO.