Why Big Tech’s plan to use nuclear power has divided public opinion

Microsoft, Google and Amazon have all pledged to use carbon-free energy by 2030, but the boom in AI technologies has significantly increased their energy consumption.

Data centres that house computing machines and related hardware have become crucial for managing data traffic generated by cloud services, artificial intelligence applications, and online platforms.

These facilities must operate non-stop and already consume 3 percent of the world’s electricity. In the US alone, they could take up 9 percent of the county’s electricity consumption by 2030—double their current usage.

With AI becoming the star of stock markets, industry giants are increasingly turning to nuclear energy to power their data centres​​, triggering concerns about the future of the environment.

“New conventional nuclear reactors require 17-23 years from planning to operation in North America and Europe, and 12-23 years worldwide,” Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, tells TRT World.

“As such, they cannot play a meaningful role in the solution to global warming, air pollution, or energy security, all of which require an 80 percent solution by 2030 and a 100 percent solution by 2035-2040.”

Jacobson emphasises that even if companies start building reactors today, they won’t be operational until at least 2042 in North America or Europe, and around 2037-2042 in other parts of the world.

“A new reactor planned today won’t be available until at least 2042,” he notes.

In his view, nuclear energy's long development timelines make it impractical for reducing emissions quickly enough to meet climate goals and transition to sustainable power sources.

Google has just announced its nuclear deal with up to 500 megawatts (MW) in energy generation.

However, in 2023, Google used 25 TWh of energy, according to the company’s annual environmental report.

One terawatt-hour equals one million megawatt-hours and can power 70,000 homes for a year.

Even so, the new nuclear supply would meet less than one-sixth of Google’s energy needs —only 17.5 percent of it— excluding the efficiency losses or demand fluctuations.

Is nuclear power clean?

Nuclear waste management remains a contentious issue in the debate over sustainability.

But Jacopo Buongiorno, a Professor of Nuclear engineering at MIT and the director of Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems (CANES), believes deploying nuclear power is essential for the development and evolution of AI.

“Nuclear reactors generate electricity that is carbon free, 24/7 uninterrupted, reliable and with minimal consumption of land. That is exactly what these data centres need,” Buongiorno tells TRT World.

Microsoft’s latest sustainability report reveals that the company’s carbon emissions have increased by 29 percent since 2020 — mainly due to the growing infrastructure required to run advanced AI models.

In light of Big Tech turning to nuclear power, managing nuclear waste is not only a burning issue, so are CO2-equivalent emissions, even though they are less than those from coal-fired power plants.

“Nuclear power is not clean. In its lifecycle, it emits 9-37 times the CO2-equivalent emissions as onshore wind” Jacobson says, citing the data from his book, “100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything”.

Buongiorno, however, insists that “nuclear waste is not an unresolved issue” and points to examples of dry cask storage and underground repositories in Finland and Sweden.

Economic viability

Jacobson argues that the current push for nuclear energy will play no significant role in the future energy economy.

“Nuclear power output in 2023 was lower (2,552 TWh/y) than it was in 2004 (2,616 TWh/y) worldwide” he references the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) report, a trend that undermines the idea that it will significantly contribute to future energy needs​.

But Buongiorno has a contrasting view on the subject.

“Once a nuclear plant is built, its cost is also quite predictable and stable for 60 years,” he tells TRT World.

According to Buongiorno, this anticipated long-term predictability offers an advantage over renewable sources that are subject to fluctuating energy markets and intermittent availability​.

The viability of ‘SMRs’

Another issue with traditional nuclear plants is their size, cost, and the long construction timelines which makes it difficult to deploy them quickly or in smaller-scale applications like individual data centres.

To address these challenges, advocates are exploring Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as a potential solution.

Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, SMRs are designed to be smaller, more flexible, and built in factories, which can reduce both costs and construction times.

Buongiorno emphasises that these modular reactors could be co-located with data centres to minimise transmission losses and ensure a consistent energy supply.

“There are no technical issues connecting a nuclear power plant—small or large—to the electric distribution system of a data centre,” he says.

He adds that SMRs offer the same level of regulatory oversight as traditional reactors, and can ensure safety even under worst-case scenarios.

While companies like Microsoft and Google are betting on the potential of SMRs and revived reactors, experts warn that these solutions may fall short.

Jacobson, is sceptical of SMRs and warns that they remain far from a reality.

“Small modular reactors don't even exist commercially. They are what is called ‘vaporware,’” he states.

“No prototype reactor will be available until at least 2030 and no commercial one will be available until years later.”

According to Jacobson, SMRs will take just as long to develop as conventional reactors and will introduce similar waste management problems.

Contrary to Jacobson's concerns over waste management, there is also a broad consensus on it, with many experts arguing that it is a "straightforward process".

According to UK-based World Nuclear Association, "storage of used fuel is normally under water for at least five years and then often in dry storage."

"Deep geological disposal is widely agreed to be the best solution for final disposal of the most radioactive waste produced."