Big Tech’s Sudden Rush Into Nuclear Is A Win-Win For America

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

The U.S. power-generation sector has been hit in recent weeks with story after story about Big Tech firms entering into deals with power providers or developers to satisfy their electricity needs with nuclear generation.

Here are some examples:

—In mid-October, Google said it had entered into an agreement to purchase power for its data center needs from Kairos Power, a developer of small modular reactors (SMRs).

—A couple of weeks earlier, Microsoft and Constellation completed a deal that would involve the restart of Unit 1 at the Three Mile Island facility in Pennsylvania to power that company’s needs.

—On Dec. 3, Meta issued a request for proposals to nuclear developers to provide up to 4 gigawatts (GW) of electricity to power data centers and AI no later than the early 2030s.

—Perhaps the most extensive development of all came two days after Google’s announcement, when Amazon announced it has entered into deals to support the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) with three developers in three different regions of the country.

So, what’s going on here? Aren’t all these Big Tech companies supposed to be totally bought into the climate-alarm narrative, a narrative that claims wind and solar are the only real “clean” energy solutions for power generation? Aren’t we constantly bombarded by boosters of those non-solutions that they are able to reliably provide uninterrupted electricity if backed up by stationary batteries?

Certainly, that has been the case in the past — few corporations could hope to match the volume of virtue signaling about green energy we have seen from these tech companies in recent years. That was all fine until, apparently, the AI revolution came along.

AI is an enormous power hog, one that these and other Big Tech firms must now rapidly adopt to remain competitive.

The trouble with AI and the data centers needed to make it go is that it requires the reliable, constant injection of electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days every year. While these Big Tech firms would no doubt love to be able to virtue signal about sourcing their power from wind and solar backed up by enormous banks of batteries, each and every one of them has assessed that option and realized it cannot reliably fill their needs.

Thus, the recent rush to nuclear. After all, once they’ve been built and placed into service, nuclear reactors are a very real zero emissions power source. And unlike wind and solar, nuclear plants do not have to be backed up by an equal amount of generation capacity provided by another fuel, consisting most often of natural gas plants. Nuclear reactors are basically the Energizer Bunnies of power generation: They just keep going and going.

Another big advantage nuclear brings over renewables is the avoidance of the need to invest in massive new transmission networks. This is especially true of SMRs, which can be installed directly adjacent to the contracting data centers. By contrast, wind generation installations must be located in areas where the wind reliably blows. Such areas are often hundreds of miles away from big demand centers, as has been the case in Texas.

Where solar is concerned, the provision of multiple gigawatts (GWs) of generation capacity can require the condemnation of hundreds of acres of land, often thousands. The stationary battery centers for 1 GW of solar or wind would require another large swath of land to be condemned. By contrast, the land footprint for a pair of 500 megawatt (MW) SMRs would amount to no more than a few acres.

Where the deal between Microsoft and Constellation is concerned, sourcing power from an older generation nuclear plant like Three Mile Island will involve interconnecting into an already extant transmission system, though some upgrades and extensions will no doubt be required.

This sudden rush to nuclear by some of the largest companies in the country will benefit all Americans. The massive infusion of capital will accelerate development of SMRs and other advanced nuclear tech, pressure policymakers to modernize antiquated nuclear regulations, and to streamline Byzantine permitting processes that currently inhibit all forms of energy development.

It is a win-win situation for all of us.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Up Next

Daniel Penny Stands By His Actions, Says He’d Face Court ‘Million’ Times To Save Others

Don't Miss

Meta’s Re-Education Era Begins

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

CBSA Bust Uncovers Mexican Cartel Network in Montreal High-Rise, Moving Hundreds Across Canada-U.S. Border

Environment / 2 hours ago

The Myths We’re Told About Climate Change | Michael Shellenberger

Business / 4 hours ago

Carney and other world leaders should recognize world’s dependence on fossil fuels

Business

Carney and other world leaders should recognize world’s dependence on fossil fuels

Published on November 11, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Simply put, despite trillions invested in the energy transition, the world is more dependent on fossil fuels today than when the United Nations launched its first COP. No wonder that ahead of COP30, leading voices of the net-zero-by-2050 agenda, including Bill Gates, are acknowledging both the vital role of fossil fuels on the planet and the failure of efforts to cut them.

On the heels of his first federal budget, which promises more spending to promote a “green economy,” Prime Minister Carney will soon fly to Brazil for COP30, the 30th United Nations climate summit. Like the former Trudeau government, the Carney government has pledged to achieve “net-zero” emissions in Canada—and compel other countries to pursue net-zero—by 2050. To achieve a net-zero world, it’s necessary to phase out fossil fuels—oil, natural gas, coal—or offset their CO2 emissions with technologies such as “carbon capture” or large-scale tree planting.

But after trillions of dollars spent in pursuit of that goal, it appears more unrealistic than ever. It’s time for world leaders, including Canada’s policymakers, to face reality and be honest about the costly commitments they make on behalf of their citizens.

For starters, carbon capture—the process of trapping and storing carbon dioxide so it’s unable to affect the atmosphere—is a developing technology not yet capable of large-scale deployment. And planting enough trees to offset global emissions would require vast amounts of land, take decades to absorb significant CO2 and risk unpredictable losses from wildfires and drought. Due to these constraints, in their net-zero quest governments and private investors have poured significant resources into “clean energy” such as wind and solar to replace fossil fuels.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), from 2015 to 2024, the world’s public and private investment in clean energy totalled and estimated US$14.6 trillion (inflation-adjusted). Yet from 1995 (the first COP year) to 2024, global fossil fuel consumption increased by more than 64 per cent. Specifically, oil consumption grew by 39 per cent, natural gas by 96 per cent and coal by 76 per cent. As of 2024, fossil fuels accounted for 80.6 per cent of global energy consumption, slightly lower than the 85.6 per cent in 1995.

The Canadian case shows an even greater mismatch between Ottawa’s COP commitments and its actual results. Despite billions spent by the federal government on the low-carbon economy (electric vehicle subsidies, tax credits to corporations, etc.), fossil fuel consumption in our country has increased by 23 per cent between 1995 and 2024. Over the same period, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy consumption climbed from 62.0 to 66.3 per cent.

Simply put, despite trillions invested in the energy transition, the world is more dependent on fossil fuels today than when the United Nations launched its first COP. No wonder that ahead of COP30, leading voices of the net-zero-by-2050 agenda, including Bill Gates, are acknowledging both the vital role of fossil fuels on the planet and the failure of efforts to cut them.

Why has this massive effort, which includes many countries and trillions of dollars, failed to transition humanity away from fossil fuels?

As renowned scholar Vaclav Smil explains, it can take centuries—not decades—for an energy source to become globally predominant. For thousands of years, humanity relied on wood, charcoal, dried dung and other traditional biomass fuels for heating and cooking, with coal only becoming a major energy source around 1900. It took oil 150 years after its introduction into energy markets to account for one-quarter of global fossil fuel consumption, a milestone reached only in the 1950s. And for natural gas, it took about 130 years after its commercial development to reach 25 per cent of global fossil fuel consumption at the end of the 20th century.

Yet, coal, oil and natural gas didn’t completely replace traditional biomass to meet the surging energy demand as the modern world developed. As of 2020, nearly three billion people in developing countries still relied on charcoal, straw and dried dung to supply their basic energy needs. In light of these facts, the most vocal proponents of the global energy transition seem, at the very least, out of touch.

The world’s continued reliance on fossil fuels should prompt world leaders at COP30 to exercise caution before pushing the same unrealistic commitments of the past. And Prime Minister Carney, in particular, should be careful not to keep leading Canadians into costly ventures that lead nowhere near their intended results.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Business

Liberals refuse to disclose the amount of taxpayer dollars headed to LGBT projects in foreign countries

Published on November 11, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney will not openly disclose how much money from its foreign-aid budget is going toward overseas “gender identity” and “decolonization” projects.

According to the government, there are “concerns” that disclosing the amount of funds could endanger certain LGBT organizations that get money from it.

On November 3, Global Affairs Canada, in response to a question on the order paper from a Conservative MP, said that the funding amounts could not be made public due to claimed “security concerns” and “confidentiality requirements.”

“These are the most common reasons projects are considered sensitive: the organization or individuals might be in danger if it becomes known that they are receiving funds from a foreign government; (or) implementing a project related to sensitive topics such as two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and additional sexually and gender-diverse people rights, human trafficking, early/forced marriage, (and) human rights defenders,” Global Affairs noted.

Continuing, Global Affairs said that there is a possible “danger” to partner organizations that could be “forced to close” or even “arrested” due to “harassment from the local population or government.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Carney’s budget will include millions in taxpayer money for “SLGBTQI+ communities,” gender equality, and “pride” safety.

Canada’s 2025 federal budget is allotting some $54.6 million to LGBT groups in a move criticized by Campaign Life Coalition as prioritizing activist agendas over struggling families’ basic needs.

Canadian taxpayers are already dealing with high inflation and high taxes due in part to the Liberal government overspending and excessive money printing, and even admitting that giving money to Ukraine comes at the “taxpayers’” expense.

As recently reported by LifeSiteNews, Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem gave a grim assessment of the state of the economy, essentially telling Canadians that they should accept a “lower” standard of living.