Get this, one chat GPT query uses 10 times
the electricity of a Google search.
10 times.
You've said it's a bunch of articles
about this whole nuclear renaissance thing,
how it's all tied to AI, using so much power.
Okay, let's dive into this.
It really is mind boggling how quickly AI,
especially these large language models like chat GPT
have just become major energy consumers.
And it's not just running them.
The real energy hog is the training process.
So training a large language model.
What's so energy intensive about that?
Well, think of it like this.
You're essentially teaching a computer
to understand and use language,
which requires feeding it massive amounts of data.
We're talking about billions of words, code.images.
All of it being analyzed and processed
by incredibly powerful computer systems.
It's like running millions of high powered computers
nonstop for weeks, maybe even months.
Wow, okay.
And all of this computing power needs a place to live.
Yeah, exactly.
All that data processing happens in data centers,
which are basically warehouses packed with servers
and cooling systems.
They're already consuming power
on the scale of entire cities.
And that's only going to increase.
So it's not just AI driving this energy demand.
Right.
The articles also talk about things like
reshoring and electrification.
You're right, reshoring,
which is bringing manufacturing back to the US
means more factories and industrial processes
that require a ton of electricity and electrification.
The switch from fossil fuels to electricity
for things like heating and transportation
also adds to the demand.
All of this is converging
to create a massive energy crunch.
What about the push for renewables like solar and wind?
Can't those help meet this growing demand?
They certainly play a vital role, but there's a catch.
Solar and wind power are intermittent,
meaning they're dependent on the weather.
We need something called baseload power,
which is a constant, reliable supply of electricity
that's available regardless of whether the sun is shining
or the wind is blowing.
Okay, I'm sorry to see where this is going.
That's where nuclear power comes in.
Right, it seems so.
Nuclear plants can provide that steady baseload power,
and they do it without producing greenhouse gas emissions.
And here's the twist, the tech industry.
Once the champion of renewables
is now turning towards nuclear energy.
That is a pretty surprising turn of events.
I mean, didn't a lot of these tech giants
build their brands on being environmentally conscious?
Absolutely.
But it seems the reality of AI's energy demands
has forced a reassessment.
These companies are realizing that
if they want to power their AI-driven future,
they need a reliable carbon-free energy source
that can scale with their needs.
And right now,
nuclear looks like the best option on the table.
So what does this look like in practice?
Were we talking about Amazon and Google
building their own nuclear plants?
Not quite, they're taking a multi-pronged approach.
We're seeing companies like Amazon
making nuclear power purchase agreements,
essentially buying electricity directly
from nuclear plants, for instance.
They have an agreement with Tail & Energy in Pennsylvania,
and are investing over $500 million
in various nuclear projects.
Wow, half a billion dollars.
They're not messing around, are they?
Are there other examples of these tech giants
getting involved in the nuclear industry?
Absolutely, Microsoft is collaborating
with Constellation Energy to reopen Three Mile Island.
Wait, Three Mile Island,
the site of the infamous nuclear accident.
The very same.
It's a powerful symbol of how perceptions
of nuclear power are shifting,
at least within the tech industry.
It seems they're betting that public opinion will follow.
Especially as concerns about climate change
and energy security grow.
What about other companies?
Is this a trend across the board?
It appears so.
Bill Gates' TerraPower project in Wyoming is another example.
They're developing advanced nuclear reactor designs
that are supposedly safer and more efficient.
Even Google is partnering with Kairos Power
for a new type of reactor technology.
And then you have Meta,
exploring nuclear power as a way
to meet their ambitious energy targets.
It's almost like the tech world has collectively decided
that nuclear is the key to their AI-powered future.
But is it really that simple?
I mean, nuclear power has historically
been incredibly expensive to build and maintain.
Are these companies really prepared to foot the bill
for a nuclear renaissance?
That's the billion dollar question.
What's different this time around
is the financial muscle these tech giants possess.
They have deep pockets
and they're willing to make long-term bets.
Plus, they view nuclear power
as essential to their business model.
Not just a feel good environmental initiative.
They see it as an investment, not just a cost.
So are we just gonna see a bunch of traditional,
massive nuclear power plants popping up across the landscape?
Not necessarily.
There's a lot of buzz around something
called small modular reactors or SMRs
as a crucial part of this nuclear comeback.
SMRs, okay.
Break that down for me.
What are they and why are they such a big deal?
Imagine a nuclear reactor.
But instead of being a gigantic structure
that takes a decade to build,
it's a more compact unit.
Kind of like a power plant in a box.
They typically produce around 300 megawatts of energy,
still a substantial amount,
but less than the typical one gigawatt output
of traditional plants.
Okay, so small is relative.
Yeah.
But I get the idea.
What are the advantages of going with these smaller reactors?
The benefits are pretty substantial.
SMRs are designed to be manufactured in factories
and then transported to their installation sites,
making them much faster and cheaper to build.
This modular approach could also address
the cost overrun issues
that have plagued traditional nuclear construction.
It sounds promising.
But are there any downsides?
Well, SMRs are still a relatively new technology.
So they haven't been proven on a large scale yet.
There are no operational SMRs in the US at the moment,
although several projects are in development
and expected to come online in the 2030s.
So a lot of this hinges on whether SMRs
can deliver on their promise.
But what about the broader nuclear landscape?
Haven't new nuclear projects faced a ton of roadblocks,
especially from regulators and public opposition?
You're hitting on a crucial point.
The regulatory landscape is definitely a challenge.
Nuclear projects require extensive approvals and oversight,
which can slow things down and add to the costs.
And then there's the issue of public perception.
Right, the elephant in the room, Chernobyl,
Three Mile Island, Fukushima.
Those disasters are seared into our collective memory.
How can the nuclear industry overcome that legacy of fear?
It's a tall order, no doubt.
But there's a growing recognition,
even among some environmental groups,
that nuclear power can play a role
in combating climate change.
And the articles you shared suggest
that public opinion is slowly shifting,
driven in part by access to more information
and a better understanding of the safety record
of modern nuclear plants.
So is this really a nuclear renaissance?
Or are we getting ahead of ourselves?
Can the tech industry, with all its money and influence,
really overcome the historical baggage and political obstacles
that have plagued nuclear power for decades?
That's the question that's hanging in the air right now.
And the answer is far from clear cut.
This isn't just a story about technology and innovation.
It's a story about politics, economics, and human psychology.
It's about risk, reward, and the choices we make as a society.
So what are some of the biggest challenges ahead?
What needs to happen for this nuclear revival
to truly take hold?
Well, for starters, there are the regulatory hurdles
we mentioned earlier.
Nuclear projects face a complex web of regulations
and licensing requirements.
Streamlining this process without compromising safety
will be crucial.
And then there's the whole supply chain issue.
Don't we need to build up a whole new industry
to support the design, construction, and operation
of these new reactors, both large and small?
Exactly.
It's not just about having the technology.
It's about having the workforce, the materials,
and the infrastructure to build these plans.
And doing it in a way that's both cost-effective
and environmentally sound.
And let's not forget the elephant in the room.
What do we do with the nuclear waste?
That's a problem we haven't figured out how to solve yet.
You're right.
Finding a safe and permanent solution for nuclear waste
disposal is a challenge that simply cannot be ignored.
It's a long-term issue with significant environmental
and ethical implications.
OK, so there are a lot of obstacles to overcome.
But what about the potential payoffs?
What's at stake here?
Why should our listener care about all of this?
This isn't just about keeping the lights on.
It's about the future of technology,
the fight against climate change,
and the choices we make as a society.
Big tech's bet on nuclear power is
a gamble on a very specific kind of future.
One where abundant, clean energy fuels
our technological aspirations and helps
us create a more sustainable world.
It's a powerful vision, for sure.
But is it realistic?
Can nuclear power really live up to these lofty expectations?
That's what we're here to explore.
One of the experts you send us articles from said something
that really stuck with me.
I said, abundant intelligence is largely
built on abundant energy.
And so I think tech's ability to continue to scale and deliver
better things for humanity is going
to be underpinned by availability of energy.
That's a striking statement.
It really underscores how intertwined AI and energy
are becoming.
It's almost like they're two sides of the same coin.
Exactly.
And that's why this story is so important.
It's not just about kilowatts and gigawatts.
It's about the future we're building
and the choices we're making.
So where do we go from here?
What are some of the key questions
we need to be asking ourselves as we navigate
this complex landscape of AI energy
and nuclear power?
One of the big questions is, can nuclear power really
be scaled up quickly enough to meet the rapidly growing energy
demands of AI and other emerging technologies?
Because building these plants, even the smaller SMRs,
still takes a significant amount of time.
We're talking about a time frame of years, not months.
Right.
Absolutely.
And even if we can overcome the technical and logistical
challenges, there's the question of public acceptance.
Can we build enough public trust in nuclear power
to make it a viable long-term solution?
And then there's the whole question of how this shift will
impact the global balance of power.
Will certain countries emerge as the new energy superpowers?
It's a fascinating question.
And unfortunately, not one with easy answers,
the future of nuclear power, like the future of AI,
is still being written.
But one thing is certain.
This is a story that will continue to unfold in the years
to come.
And it's one that will be following closely.
So as we wrap up this part of our deep dive,
what are some of the key takeaways
you want our listener to walk away with?
What should they be thinking about
as they process all of this information?
I think the most important thing is
to recognize the interconnectedness of these issues.
Energy.technology.climatechange.
Geopolitics.
They're all intertwined.
And we can't address one without considering the others.
And we also need to acknowledge that there
are no easy answers here.
This isn't a black and white issue.
It's a complex landscape with a lot of competing interests
and perspectives.
Absolutely.
And that's why it's so important to have these conversations,
to explore the nuances, and to challenge your own assumptions.
The future of energy is something we create together.
And the choices we make today will
have far-reaching consequences.
Well said.
And with that, we'll wrap up part one of this deep dive.
Be sure to join us for part two, where we'll delve even deeper
into the potential risks and rewards of this nuclear revival.
Sounds good.
It's fascinating how this whole situation is making us
re-examine all our assumptions about nuclear power.
Just a few years ago, it felt like the world had moved on.
It's true.
It was all about renewables.
Solar panels everywhere, wind farms, as far as the eye could see.
Nuclear felt like a relic of the past.
And now, it's back in the spotlight, not as a last resort,
but potentially as a cornerstone of a clean energy future.
That's a pretty remarkable turnaround.
One of the articles even quoted an expert comparing this
to a lost vision of the future.
They said, tech, through power needs for AI,
are unlocking the beautiful future
we thought we were headed to before the oil shocks of the 70s.
That's a really evocative image.
Like, we're picking up where we left off,
but with a whole new set of tools and challenges.
Yeah.
And this time, it's not governments leading the charge.
It's the very companies that built the digital world we live in,
the ones who gave us smartphones, social media, and now AI.
They're saying nuclear is essential to keep all that going.
It's quite the paradigm shift.
But it's not just about the technology itself.
It's about who controls it, who benefits from it,
and who bears the risks.
One of the articles brought up the idea of energy security.
Especially with what's happening in Ukraine,
countries are realizing they need to be more self-sufficient
when it comes to energy.
Absolutely.
The geopolitical landscape is shifting,
and energy is at the heart of it.
The war in Ukraine has highlighted
how vulnerable countries can be when they rely on others
for energy.
So this nuclear revival, it's not just
about keeping the lights on or powering our gadgets.
It's tied into bigger issues of global power and stability.
Exactly.
The questioner, will this lead to greater cooperation
or more competition?
Will we see a race to build more nuclear plants?
Will there be new alliances formed around access
to nuclear technology?
It's almost like we're on the verge of a new era of energy
politics, and the stakes couldn't be higher.
It's crucial to remember this isn't just a national issue.
It's a global one.
The decisions we make about nuclear power
will have a ripple effect around the world.
And this brings us to another layer of complexity,
the sheer scale of the challenge ahead.
You're right.
We're not talking about building a few new power plants
here and there.
This is about transforming the entire energy
infrastructure of the planet.
And that's not a quick fix.
It's a long-term project that will require massive investments,
not to mention technological innovation
and international collaboration on an unprecedented
scale.
And it's not just about building new infrastructure.
It's also about managing the existing one.
There are hundreds of nuclear power plants
operating around the world, many of them
nearing the end of their life cycles.
Decommissioning a nuclear power plant
is a complex and expensive process.
And we're going to need to do a lot of it
in the coming decades.
And then there's the issue of nuclear waste,
which remains radioactive for thousands of years.
It's like a Pandora's box of challenges.
But it's a box we can't afford to ignore.
The decisions we make about nuclear power
will shape the future of our planet for generations to come.
And that brings us back to the key question.
Is this nuclear renaissance a genuine solution?
Or are we setting ourselves up for more problems down the road?
It's a big question.
But even if we assume for a moment
that this is the right path, what are the immediate challenges
we need to address?
For one, we need to figure out the supply chain.
It's not just about the reactors themselves.
We need the specialized materials, the skilled workers,
the transportation systems, the safety protocols,
a whole ecosystem to support this new nuclear age.
And what about the financial side of things?
Building nuclear plants is notoriously expensive.
Can we really afford this?
Especially with so many other competing priorities,
like health care, education, and infrastructure.
That's a valid concern.
And it's not just the initial costs.
It's the long-term operating and maintenance expenses,
as well as the cost of decommissioning plants
and managing nuclear waste.
And then there's the elephant in the room.
Public perception.
How do we overcome the fear factor associated
with nuclear power?
That's a huge hurdle.
The accidents at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island,
and Fukushima have left a deep scar on the public psyche.
Right.
Even if the new generation of reactors
is safer and more efficient, can we
convince people to trust this technology?
Especially when you consider the potential for misuse,
like nuclear weapons proliferation or terrorism?
You're hitting on some very real concerns.
And it's not just about convincing the public.
It's also about ensuring that the proper safety
and security measures are in place at every stage
of the nuclear fuel cycle.
It sounds like we're facing a mountain of challenges.
So why are we even considering this?
Why not just double down on renewables and other clean energy
technologies?
That's a valid question.
And many people argue that we should.
But the reality is renewables alone
may not be enough to meet the rapidly growing demand
for electricity, especially as we electrify more
of our economy.
So what are the arguments in favor of nuclear?
Why do some experts believe it's an essential part
of the solution?
Well, nuclear power is a proven technology
that can provide large amounts of reliable base load
electricity without emitting greenhouse gases.
And new reactor designs are being developed
that are supposedly safer and more efficient than ever before.
So it's about scale, reliability,
and the need to decarbonize our energy systems quickly.
But are those benefits enough to outweigh
the risks and challenges?
That's the million dollar question.
And it's one that each individual, each community,
and each nation will have to grapple with as we navigate
this new energy landscape.
It's a lot to process.
So as we wrap up this part of our deep dive,
what are some key questions our listeners should consider?
What should they be asking themselves
as they grapple with this complex issue?
I think it's important to start with the clear understanding
of the problem, the scale of the energy challenge we face,
the limitations of current solutions,
and the potential consequences of inaction.
And then we need to weigh the potential benefits
of nuclear power against the risks and challenges.
Is it a necessary evil, a bridge to a cleaner future,
or a dangerous gamble?
And we need to consider the ethical implications.
How do we ensure that nuclear technology is used responsibly
and safely?
How do we protect future generations
from the risks of nuclear waste?
Those are some big questions.
And it's clear there are no easy answers.
Absolutely.
This is a complex issue with a lot of nuances and trade-offs.
But that's exactly why it's so important to have these
conversations, to explore the different perspectives,
and to challenge our own assumptions.
Well said.
We'll delve deeper into these questions
and explore some potential solutions into this form.
Part three of our deep dive.
We've been talking about this nuclear renaissance.
And it feels like there's a lot of hope mixed with apprehension.
Right.
There's definitely this sense of possibility.
But also this awareness of the weight of history
and the potential consequences.
We've talked about costs, waste, accidents.
But what about the communities that live near these plants?
How will this nuclear revival impact their lives?
That's a critical question.
And one that often gets overlooked in these big picture
discussions about energy.
We can't just focus on the technological and economic
aspects.
We need to consider the social and human dimensions as well.
I mean, it's easy to talk about gigawatts and emissions
targets.
But these are real people's lives we're talking about.
Exactly.
And they often bear the brunt of the risks associated
with these facilities, whether it's
the potential for accidents or the long term environmental
impacts.
And let's be honest.
The history of the nuclear industry
hasn't exactly been reassuring in that regard.
You're right.
There have been some major missteps.
And those events have, understandably, created
a lot of fear and distrust.
So how do we move forward in a way that
addresses those concerns?
How do we build trust and ensure that these communities are
protected?
Well, for starters, we need to acknowledge
that past mistakes have been made
and that those mistakes have had real consequences for people.
Transparency is key.
We need to be open and honest about the risks involved
and engage in meaningful dialogue with communities.
So it's not just about top down decision making.
It's about collaboration and listening
to the concerns of those who will be most affected.
Absolutely.
And it's about ensuring that they have a voice in the process.
Their input is crucial, not just in terms of safety,
but also in terms of how these projects are developed
and implemented.
And what about the bigger ethical questions
surrounding nuclear power, the fact
that it's a technology that can be used for both good and bad?
That duality is something we can't ignore.
It's inherent to the technology itself.
And it raises some profound moral challenges.
On the one hand, we have the potential
to address climate change and provide clean energy.
But on the other, we have the risk of proliferation
and the potential for devastating consequences.
It's a delicate balance.
And it requires a level of responsibility and foresight
that we haven't always demonstrated in the past.
So this isn't just a technological challenge.
It's a human challenge.
It's about who we are, what we value,
and what kind of future we want to create.
I couldn't agree more.
It's about making choices that align
with our deepest ethical principles
and ensuring that those choices benefit all of humanity,
not just a select few.
So where do we go from here?
What are some concrete steps we can take
to navigate this complex landscape?
Well, one crucial step is to invest in research and development.
We need to continue exploring safer and more efficient reactor
designs, as well as innovative approaches
to waste management and storage.
So it's not about clinging to outdated technologies.
It's about pushing the boundaries of what's possible.
Exactly.
And that requires a commitment to innovation and a willingness
to challenge the status quo.
And alongside technological advancements,
we also need to prioritize education and public engagement.
Absolutely.
We need to foster a more informed and nuanced conversation
about nuclear power, one that moves beyond the fear and hype
and delves into the complexities.
So it's about empowering people with knowledge,
helping them understand the risks and benefits.
Yes, and encouraging them to participate in shaping
the future of energy.
It's a daunting task.
But it's one we can't afford to shy away from.
I agree.
The stakes are too high.
This is about our planet, our future,
and our shared responsibility to create
a more just and sustainable world.
It's been quite a journey exploring this nuclear revival.
Yeah.
From the technological marvels to the ethical dilemmas.
And I think the key takeaway is that this isn't just about energy.
It's about who we are as a society
and what kind of future we want to build.
Well said.
This is a story that's still being written.
And it's up to all of us to play a part in shaping the narrative.
And with that, we'll bring this deep dive
to a close.
We hope this conversation has sparked your curiosity
and encouraged you to keep asking questions.
The future of energy is in our hands.
Thank you for joining us.