Big Tech Wants Nuclear Instead of Renewables to Power AI
When the rubber met the road and the progressive climate change warriors in Silicon Valley needed energy to power their AI and data centers.
You might be surprised to learn they didn’t opt for the “renewable” energy technologies they’ve been forcing down our throats (wind turbines and solar panels) using the weight of big government, but instead went for … reliability and affordability. [emphasis, links added]
Or maybe it’s not all that unexpected, considering these are the same people who fly from climate conference to climate conference in personal private jets and gorge themselves on Kobe beef while calling on us to eat crickets and lab-grown “meat” mash.
Today, Jo Nova at her eponymous blog reported on the news that executives at three of the biggest names in the tech world, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have been buying up nuclear reactors to supply the tremendous amount of energy required to run AI programs and data collection/storage facilities:
Two weeks ago it was Microsoft reviving Three Mile Island’s nuclear plant. Now Google is buying seven small modular reactors, and Amazon is spending $500 million USD on part of a nuclear energy company.
If you weren’t aware, AI and data centers consume an unbelievable amount of energy; from Goldman Sachs earlier this year:
On average, a ChatGPT query needs nearly 10 times as much electricity to process as a Google search.
[snip]
Now, as the pace of efficiency gains in electricity use slows and the AI revolution gathers steam, Goldman Sachs Research estimates that data center power demand will grow 160% by 2030.
(I’d like to ask why the “pace of efficiency gains in electricity” is slowing—perhaps it’s the ridiculous constraints imposed by a progressive government forcing inefficient technologies—but that’s another topic for another day.)
As we are all miserably aware, these three companies are radically left, both in their company mission and the personal ideology of their executives, and they use their weight to influence policy—they’re leading proponents of the progressive “climate change” narrative.
While they’ve certainly “invested” a bit into the “zero-carbon” energy schemes, they abandoned their positions for personal gain when they needed reliability and affordability—the very reason we conservatives have insisted that nuclear energy is a great and clean option.
Does that mean we “unwashed masses” will be afforded the same opportunities? Or will we still be saddled [with inefficiency and unaffordability]?
I suspect the latter.
Thanks again to Jo Nova for the great reporting.
See more here Climate Dispatch
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATI ONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. [paypal-donation
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
Big tech is an idiot show. They support using useless wind and solar energy, then DEI, then wokeism then they become anti-capitalism with their big time monopolies. Like big pharma, it’s all about spying, control and gargantuan profits at all costs.
Reply