Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors
by pinewurst on Monday October 14, 2024 @04:51PM
(#41841858)
This isn’t a binding contract like Elon Musk agreeing to buy Twitter. Google may be bound in some way to buy power from a future unbuilt powerplant that doesn’t yet exist in prototype form. If Kairos fizzles, more likely than not, can Google seek damages? Will Microsoft seek damages from their binding contract when Helios isn’t grinding out fusion gigawatts in 2028 as promised?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors
by Tostino on Monday October 14, 2024 @05:07PM
(#41842025)
This is de-risking the other way. It allows the energy companies to build their infrastructure without worries that they will get undercut by a competitor and be stuck with overbuilt infrastructure and no one to sell to.
Without that commitment, the investment doesn't get made into the new power generation. Margins in that industry are much lower than in tech.
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors
by patmorgan23 on Monday October 14, 2024 @09:56PM
(#41844168)
Yes, it gives them some firm future revenue numbers to work with. They can take this agreement and get financing to pay for the actual construction needed.
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors
by JumpCrisscross on Monday October 14, 2024 @05:43PM
(#41842340)
> isn’t a binding contract
It absolutely is. Don’t know the details. But there is usually a minimum purchase guarantee by the buyer.
> If Kairos fizzles, more likely than not, can Google seek damages
Probably. Though collecting might be difficult.
> Will Microsoft seek damages from their binding contract when Helios isn’t grinding out fusion gigawatts in 2028 as promised?
Damages, no. Concessions? Probably.
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors
by mensetmanusman on Monday October 14, 2024 @05:08PM
(#41842040)
Why would they fissile? Nuclear is solved.
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors
by ViewTrick1002 on Monday October 14, 2024 @05:31PM
(#41842252)
Look to NuScales near collapse last autumn for a recent nuclear power example:
NuScale has a more credible contract with the Carbon Free Power Project (“CFPP”) for the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (“UAMPS”). CFPP participants have been supportive of the project despite contracted energy prices that never seem to stop rising, from $55/MWh in 2016, to $89/MWh at the start of this year. What many have missed is that NuScale has been given till around January 2024 to raise project commitments to 80% or 370 MWe, from the existing 26% or 120 MWe, or risk termination. Crucially, when the participants agreed to this timeline, they were assured refunds for project costs if it were terminated, which creates an incentive for them to drop out. We are three months to the deadline and subscriptions have not moved an inch.