Amazon, Google and Meta Support Tripling Nuclear Power By 2050 (cnbc.com)
- Reference: 0176694765
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/03/12/1350256/amazon-google-and-meta-support-tripling-nuclear-power-by-2050
- Source link: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/12/amazon-google-and-meta-support-tripling-nuclear-power-by-2050.html
> The tech companies signed a pledge first adopted in December 2023 by more than 20 countries, including the U.S., at the U.N. Climate Change Conference. Financial institutions including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley backed the pledge last year.
>
> The pledge is nonbinding, but highlights the growing support for expanding nuclear power among leading industries, finance and governments. Amazon, Google and Meta are increasingly important drivers of energy demand in the U.S. as they build out AI centers. The tech sector is turning to nuclear power after concluding that renewables alone won't provide enough reliable power for their energy needs.
Microsoft and Apple did not sign the statement.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/12/amazon-google-and-meta-support-tripling-nuclear-power-by-2050.html
Power sinks (Score:4, Insightful)
All of this time we've been told to conserve power, go green, etc. Now all of that conservation is just going down the drain of AI, bitcoin farms and data centers. How about THEY start cutting back?
Re: (Score:2)
Naaa, why should they? They are not the ones trying to do anything about climate change or the widening wealth-gap.
Re: (Score:1)
It was always a scare tactic to impose communism - it was never real.
Even the IPCC is now saying the Sun is the major contributor to climate conditions.
The vast majority of silenced scientists: Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
You're profoundly stupid.
Okay, but... (Score:3)
That's all fine and dandy; it's easy to ask for more nuclear developments.
Until they ALSO are expected to make pledges to deal with nuclear waste, and potential nuclear meltdowns, until they do, this should be binned.
As usual, they're looking at their own gains, and not what the rest of society is going to have to deal with after they make their buck. It's just more corporate welfare. If they can't support human welfare, we shouldn't support their corporate welfare.
So fuck that shit, they've done it enough. Attitudes need a re-calibration.
Build trend doesn't support the option (Score:3)
Triple capacity in the next 25 years? Good luck, even with the $trillions those companies could in theory throw at it.
A quick look [1]at OurWorldInData [ourworldindata.org] indicates that total capacity has gone from ~2,540 TWh in 2000 to ~2,700 in the 2020-2023 window (jagged but roughly flat). So, about a 6.3% increase over the last 25 years, globally. Now, in the next 25 years, they want to see a 300% increase, in deployment of systems that take on the order of 6-8 years each, globally (thanks Google). With a little over 400 plants operating (per Google, 2023) globally, that means a net build of ~1200 equivalent plants, not accounting for rebuilds or decomissionings. Then further, all those reactors need the associated transmission capability and grid capacity, wheresoever they may be built.
All of this build needs to involve fairly rare, specialized skill sets and fabrication capabilities, which would need to be expanded to handle the volume (and then, perhaps, be mothballed? Or would the pace continue afterwards?) -- and over 25 years, we're talking about people who are starting *today* being potentially ready for retirement at completion, so entire generations of skilled workforce being involved.
Can it be done? Potentially. Personnel,manufacturing, and materials availability becomes a concern, but those might be worked through. Realistically? Not even close.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=Following%20fast%20growth%20during%20the,offline%20due%20to%20safety%20concerns
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger concern is red tape. Regulation should be in place, but it should not be so time consuming as to delay building by years after the plans and applications are in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Vogtle 3 and 4 didn't turn out seven years late because of regulation, other than an insistence that they be built to spec. All permits were issued in a timely fashion. The reactors were late because of construction screw-ups. The reinforcing rod structure was built badly out of spec; most of a year was lost to an engineering study to find a work-around. When the concrete floor was poured, it was supposed to be level; there was an almost six inch slope. Again, large amounts of time lost to engineering a
Re: (Score:2)
> Can it be done? Potentially. Personnel,manufacturing, and materials availability becomes a concern, but those might be worked through. Realistically? Not even close.
Also note that nuclear fuel would become a lot more expensive and may even start to run out in a decade or two (the affordable part, that is) if consumption would be increased by that much. And that is with nuclear already being the most expensive way to generate power by a significant and increasing margin.
Get Mexico to (Score:2)
build a solar wall! :)
Too Expensive (Score:1)
All this AI power demand does not change the inexpedient fact that each and every nuclear power plant costs BILLIONS to build and takes years. Unless these companies want to own and build these plants, no one else is going to foot the bill. In other words, only money talks. It ain't happening.
Okay cool. (Score:5, Insightful)
So pay for it.
Amazon, Google, and Meta have a combined market cap of about $5.7 Trillion. They can afford it, they'll reap the sole benefits of it, so they should pay for it. We cut people off from food stamps if they dare make a dollar over some arbitrary cutoff, so perhaps we should stop letting trillion dollar multinational corps suck money from taxpayers to enrich themselves even more.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
It's based on the federal poverty level, so it's designed to stop helping people if they start getting out of poverty. The FPL is based on average wages for poor people. Average wages for poor people are based on the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage has never kept pace with inflation.
It's not arbitrary, it's evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The reason why commercial electricity rates in most places is much lower than the general population's utility rate is because they don't have to pay their share of the grid cost. It's why some states have massive price increases for Average Joe as result of new data centers, because the new power lines have to be paid by someone and it's not FAANG.
we will pay for an pack of homers to run the plant (Score:2)
we will pay for an pack of homers to run the plant
Re: (Score:2)
This statement is entirely pointless, because none of those companies are electricity generators. They could be - but that is a diversification, and so an entirely new business line for each of them to consider.
We all pay, those companies included, for future nuclear/coal/gas/solar through our electricity bills. The electricity companies collecting those fees ought to be investing in the future. If they aren't, then it's a market failure - since electricity generation and distribution isn't really a 'free m
Re: (Score:2)
Taxpayers aren't an electricity generator either, but the alternative to what the OP is asking for is that we foot the bill. Power companies themselves have always been reluctant to invest in Nuclear without massive government subsidies.
If they want an expensive method of electricity generation, let them pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
> This statement is entirely pointless, because none of those companies are electricity generators
They don't have to be. They can commission a power plant from another company and pen a deal to buy the power, or even spin off a joint venture/subsidiary shell company to built and/or operate it.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, cool cool.
We'll pay for the refining and disposal, they can reap the electricity.
No. No we won't.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This is a reaction to the new US government. They are hoping for some free taxpayer money.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They are hoping to get a lot of taxpayer money by way of excessively expensive generated nuclear power being sold to them for cheap. The current political climate of grandstanding, incompetence, disconnect, old and obsolete ideas and hiding the real cost makes that move look good. If you have no morals or integrity. Obviously, big-tech is not restricted by those.
They are probably also hoping that Elonias current destruction of the federal government will degrade decision making processes enough for
Sick, Sad World (Score:2)
sooooo...
Nukes to reduce global warming - nahhhh...
Nukes to power useless AI speculation - hell yeah!
Sounds about par for the course.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But what they really want here is energy for cheap that is the most expensive to generate. They are trying to capitalize from the revitalized stupidity that nuclear power is somehow a good idea or worth the cost. And hence there would be a huge bill for the taxpayer.
Typical corporate assholes that only know how to take, take, take. And obviously they will not finance any of this themselves, because they know it would be a really bad investment into an obsolete technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's allow them to do so first.
Then I support 100%.
Working families shouldn't have to compete with AI for scarce electricity in an infrastructure that humans built.
They're trying to make us pay for it. (Score:2)
There is local legislation for Small Nuclear Reactors here now, where they want us to pay for them so they can build data centers here.
I saw an article about this earlier this morning, which also said that the only functional ones in the world are in China and Russia. So they want us to be guinea pigs too.