[fragmede]

Money talks. Signing the PPA is a legally binding contract to buy the power, so the power companies will them be willing to build the plant, knowing that there's guaranteed demand. Without the PPA, there's no guaranteed demand, and the powerplant won't get built.

[denkmoon]

Legally binding is a nebulous concept when you're some of the world's richest companies with legal departments multiple times larger than the entire staff of the companies you're 'legally bound' with.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Legally binding is a nebulous concept when you're some of the world's richest companies

The flip side of being rich enough to hire good counsel is being rich enough to be worth going after. Were Google to renege on an agreement such as this, there would be a line of litigation financiers standing to buy the claim.

[asdf000333]

Unless it's not actually Google but some shell company Google is technically a customer of. But either way, I don't imagine the intent is to bail on the agreement.

[bpodgursky]

That extremely large and competent legal departments is going to tell you this:

"Taking this to court will cost you a bajillion dollars. And you'll lose. Cut the antics and pay them off."

[kortilla]

An agreement to buy enough power for a lightbulb from a plant generating from unicorn farts is meaningless.

If they happen to pull through, it’s a drop in the bucket of Google’s overall consumption. If they don’t, then there is no downside for Google. This is not an investment.

[patmorgan23]

It's a first customer, and guaranteed revenue if the generation is able to be built and operated. It's huge for the nuclear startup company, and can be used to get the financing lined up.

Agreed that Google is taking on very little risk here, but it's still a good action and moves the space forward.

[kortilla]

Important to the customer, yes. Meaningless as an indication of Google’s commitment to clean energy.