Atomic Boom: Big Tech Goes Nuclear

In October last year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report suggesting that the world is entering the ‘Age of Electricity'. Now, I appreciate a catchy soundbite as much as the next person, but this feels about a century too late for me. Nevertheless, I think I get the point they're making: we are entering an era of unprecedented electrification, bringing significant implications for both demand and supply.

The IEA positioned this as good news for renewable energy, arguing that surplus fossil fuel supplies would unlock additional funding for clean energy in the latter half of this decade. Well, we’re now in the latter half of the decade, and while 2024 saw record investments in renewables, supply growth is failing to keep pace with soaring demand (a phenomenon I explored in my last piece: The Jevons Paradox.) Meanwhile, under Trump’s leadership it seems unlikely that the U.S. will drive significant advances in diversification away from fossil fuel domination in the next four years. Indeed, the IEA itself even shows coal continuing to increase as a source of energy provision over the next few years.

Thankfully, most corporations plan on time horizons far longer than electoral cycles. That’s why it’s been fascinating to watch Big Tech pivot toward what they call "clean energy". Which, in reality, is just code for nuclear.

Demand for nuclear is mushrooming

Big Tech seems to be backing nuclear as a key part of the energy solution. The explosive growth of AI, cryptocurrency, and high-performance computing – each bringing its own increase in power and cooling demands – means electricity demand is set to skyrocket. If we have any hope of meeting climate targets (which increasingly feel like lofty aspirations rather than achievable goals), it’s very clear we need cleaner and more sustainable energy sources.

Nuclear is an interesting case. Few forms of energy split opinions so sharply. In a former role, I was asked whether nuclear could be included under a "climate" investment mandate – a valid question. It certainly doesn’t qualify as "renewable" since its fuel sources (primarily uranium-235 and plutonium-239) do not naturally replenish within human-relevant timescales. However, it is undeniably “low-carbon”. But should we embrace it?

Public sentiment seems to lean towards a conditional acceptance: nuclear is fine as long as it’s not in my backyard. The shadows of Chernobyl and Fukushima still loom large. Yet Big Tech is forging ahead. Microsoft has signed a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with Constellation Energy to supply nuclear power to its data centres. Amazon Web Services has partnered with Talen Energy and is leading a $500m investment in X-energy, which develops Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Google has signed a deal with Kairos Power, another SMR developer, while OpenAI is backing Oklo, a firm working on compact fast reactors.

That Big Tech is securing clean, reliable energy should, in theory, be welcome news. And yet, this wholesale private sector move into nuclear leaves me deeply uneasy. Perhaps it’s because Microsoft’s deal involves restarting the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generation Station, the site of the worst accident in U.S. commercial nuclear history. Or perhaps it’s something deeper.

I suspect the real issue is the privatisation of nuclear power itself. Growing up in the 1980s, I was immersed in extreme nuclear scepticism. And while I recognise the need for energy progress, I can't shake the concern that placing nuclear power in private hands is a fundamentally bad idea.

Big Tech has already commodified our attention, harvesting it with alarming efficiency and a troubling lack of embarrassment. Now, they seek control over one of the most powerful energy sources on the planet. Should we really trust them with it?

Why Big Tech’s Nuclear Ambitions Are Cause for Concern

1. Profit Over Safety

Big Tech’s move into nuclear supply chains risks centralising energy control in private enterprises, reducing regulatory oversight. While businesses will claim they are committed to safety, history shows that when profit becomes the primary driver, safety can take a backseat. We’ve seen this in industries ranging from finance to aviation - so why would nuclear be any different?

Moreover, SMRs – while marketed as a "safer" and more "flexible" nuclear option – remain  relatively untested at scale. Rushing their deployment could heighten the risk of accidents or design flaws emerging too late.

2. Nuclear Proliferation Risks

Privatising nuclear energy raises serious proliferation concerns. Government oversight is crucial in preventing nuclear materials from being diverted for illicit purposes. A fragmented, privatised nuclear sector increases the risk of weaker security protocols, accidental leaks, or even deliberate misuse.

While hysteria around nuclear threats may have faded since the days of Hans Blix, weakening non-proliferation norms remains a dangerous prospect. Governments have historically strictly regulated nuclear fuel cycles to prevent the production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. Private firms – driven by efficiency and cost-cutting – may lack the same level of scrutiny and caution.

3. Increased Environmental Risks

It would be unfair to conflate privatisation with incompetence (indeed I would automatically assert the opposite), but history suggests that private entities tend to prioritise cost reductions and speed – sometimes at the expense of long-term safety. While this approach may work for software, logistics, or space travel, in nuclear energy the stakes are exponentially higher.

When things go wrong with nuclear, they go catastrophically wrong. The potential human, environmental, and economic costs of a nuclear disaster are simply too vast to leave in the hands of corporations acting primarily on behalf of shareholders.

Instructions Nuclear: Where Do We Go From Here?

Call me an over-reactor if you will, but I’m no Luddite. I support technological progress, and I do believe nuclear must play a key role in achieving decarbonisation goals. But if we want a safe, sustainable nuclear future, governments and regulators must retain control. We need a model where innovation is encouraged, but oversight remains firmly in public hands.

Meanwhile, private companies interested in improving the energy landscape have other areas upon which to focus. Instead of nuclear, they could accelerate investment in traditional renewables and energy storage. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are already revolutionising the ability to integrate renewables into the grid, smoothing supply fluctuations and increasing reliability. Further breakthroughs in energy storage could eliminate the need for coal – and perhaps even nuclear altogether.

So yes, nuclear will be a part of the future. But whether it should be Big Tech’s future to own and control is another matter entirely.