The U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power To Fuel the AI Boom
Texas, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are turning to nuclear power to meet data centers' energy demands.

AI is bringing enormous benefits to consumers and businesses. It is also bringing significant strain to the power grid. Some researchers estimate that one ChatGPT query requires the energy equivalent of lighting a lightbulb for 20 minutes and 10 times as much electricity as a single Google search. Goldman Sachs projects that AI will increase data center power demand by 160 percent nationwide through 2030.
The Department of Energy also expects data centers' energy use to balloon. A December 2024 report forecasts that cloud computing will account for as much as 12 percent of the nation's annual energy use by 2028—up from 4.4 percent in 2023. Virginia, California, and Texas will each serve as a "primary hub" for both small- and large-scale cloud data centers, according to the Energy Department.
Texas is the fastest-growing consumer of electricity in the nation, according to the Energy Information Administration. In 2024, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)—which manages about 90 percent of the state's grid—said electricity demands could nearly double by 2030 as data centers and cryptocurrency grow and as oil operations in the Permian Basin begin to run on electricity instead of diesel. In March, ERCOT said it has received requests for 99 gigawatts (GW) of new connections—enough to power almost 25 million homes—from large power users (including data centers) in the past year. The state will need to add the energy equivalent of 30 nuclear power plants by 2030 to meet demand, reports Bloomberg.
Last Energy is preparing to deliver 30 such reactors—microreactors, that is. In February, the company announced plans to build 30 of its 20-megawatt reactors in Haskell County, Texas, to service data centers across the state. The site is conveniently located 200 miles west of Dallas, where data centers are expected to add 43 GW of demand to the grid through 2029.
The company has filed for a grid connection with ERCOT, which takes about 18–30 months to complete, according to the regulator. Last Energy is also in the process of applying for an Early Site Permit with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Once obtained, the company will have a 10–20 year window to build its reactors.
This will be Last Energy's first operational project in the United States. Despite being an American company, Last Energy has focused on growing its business abroad because of stringent federal regulations. The developer sued the NRC in December 2024, challenging an agency rule requiring all nuclear power–producing entities—including those that do not generate enough electricity to turn on a lightbulb—to obtain an operating license from the commission before turning on.
Texas isn't the only state turning to nuclear power to meet its data center demand. In Virginia, where data centers could double the state's power demands by 2034, Amazon is partnering with Dominion Energy to develop three new nuclear energy projects. Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pennsylvania, is restarting to provide energy to Microsoft's data servers. The power plant was shut down in 2019.
These efforts will only be as cost-effective and efficient as regulations allow. But the renewed interest in clean and reliable nuclear power could allow the U.S. to make advancements in AI with minimal greenhouse gas emissions.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "AI Boom Turns to Nuclear for Power."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“But the renewed interest in clean and reliable nuclear power could allow the U.S. to make advancements in AI with minimal greenhouse gas emissions.”
Don’t bet on it. The Greens will shut it down.
I know a local college professor who absolutely hates AI because it uses "too much" electricity, and he fears that will kill the planet faster.
I know an EE who thinks the whole AI "too much" electricity is BS.
1-Truck engine puts out 441,300 Watts.
1-Intels i9-13900 CPU uses 150 Watts.
One Truck could power 3,000 Top-of-the-line processors.
How much power are we suppose to believe is needed for AI?
And if it's taking that much power what exactly is it doing?
The data centers are using many cpu's that all dwarf an intel I9. And those data centers are probably using just as much power for lights, heating & cooling. However I tend to agree with your EE guy; that seems like a lot of power just to run computing resources.
"And if it's taking that much power what exactly is it doing?" I'm not sure you should be asking those kinds of questions. Your future AI overlords will not look kindly to inferior humans asking too many questions. ????
If those electricity usage numbers are anywhere close to correct, the sanctimonious envirocult should absolutely be shamed out of using AI. If we're really on the precipice of global doom as they say, then any self-respecting greenie would be guilty of genocide by scorching our skies just so they can create an image of AOC riding a genderqueer tiger on a rainbow.
If the Greens don't shut it down, MAGA will. They worship fossil fuels.
Nuclear is safe. The number of deaths from civilian nuclear power plants in the entire history of the nuclear industry is zero. People die in large numbers from the air pollution resulting from burning fossil fuels, although natural gas is much safer than coal or oil. Solar and wind electricity are great, but NIMBYs are an even bigger problem for them, which is why Texas leads the world in wind energy as it is a sparsely populated state with reliable winds. (MAGA hates that fact, too.) And solar and wind can't as easily be ramped up or down.
LIE .. "the entire history of the nuclear industry is zero"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster
Estimates as high as 60,000.
Acute deaths (within seconds) at 30 and 60 within a decade.
Contaminating 2500 acres where still to this day contaminates 1500 acres.
You just as well be advertising nuclear warfare is 100% safe.
Those accidents happened over in a communist country. Nuclear *can be* safe. As safe as we choose to make it. Having said that, you do trust our government to make it completely safe, right? I mean after all with all the perfect work they make of everything else; don't you trust our government? 😉
Or how about private corporations? Surely we can trust them to build and operate nuclear plants safely, right? I mean they wouldn't cut corners to trim costs...would they? (ROFL)
The purpose of renewable isn't to benifit the environment or people, it's about control and destruction.
Made obvious by its need to be 'political' (Gov-Guns).
Nonsense. Solar and wind energy are reliable, safe, and should be pursued. As should nuclear. If we don't expand electricity generating capacity, you won't be able to comment here on Reason.
pursued in an environment of Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
NOT a Gov-Gun'em down to fund my pet project that's nothing but a con-artists project.
D.C. per capita has 5-TIMES the income as any other state in the union and produces NOTHING to speak of.
When I was a kid, we were told nuclear power would be so cheap to run, electricity would be almost free.
And if we killed the eco Marxists it would be
Contrary to popular indoctrination. Uranium-235 doesn't grow on trees and reactors don't build themselves and nuclear waste doesn't just evaporate overnight.
There are plenty of fuels available to run breeder reactors forever. Plus, the breeder reactor will also "evaporate" the nuclear waste; turning it into energy as well.
So what's holding it up?
I'm just as against 'Guns' dictating a 'No' as I am 'Guns' dictating a 'make it happen'. 'Guns' don't serve the purpose of making electricity so as long as Liberty and Justice is ensure (their only purpose) I'm all in favor.
I took some time a while back to see if it was 'Guns' holding up nuclear and concluded it really wasn't. Most of the reason nuclear didn't go viral is because the cost just wasn't what political lobbyists for nuclear pretended they were .... JUST like Solar/Wind.
"So what's holding it up?"
Watermelons.
Uranium is a very safe fuel. Plutonium isn't. Why fix what has worked for generations?
Breeder reactors don't really solve all the problems. Most of the designs include Plutonium an intermediate stage or waste product; and it's really nasty stuff.
I was curious about that "evaporate nuclear waste" line. What little I read doesn't suggest what you said. There's no energy produced, but some nuclear waste can be reduced and/or rendered inert onsite; turning some of it into short half-life elements. It doesn't solve the problem of nuclear waste, though I was happy to read this line in my queries: "The systems are compact and self-contained, so that no plutonium-containing material needs to be transported away from the site of the breeder reactor."
I'm not certain I trust either our government or private industry to operate them safely however. Though it is a viable long term solution to our energy needs.
Production of U-235 is a government monopoly. And you wouldn't want it any other way. Our capitalists here in the US are no longer loyal to the country.
Maybe you aught to give the power of Gov-Gun Forces to the Capitalists and just call them 'Government' from now on.
Good grief you don't think much do you?
Wrong. What killed nuclear was not eco Marxists, who don't even exist. It was high interest rates in the 1970s. Several utilities went broke because they couldn't pay off their bonds.
"Several utilities went broke". Indeed. That's what my findings found as well.
Contrary to popular indoctrination; nuclear isn't as cost-effective as most want to pretend it is.
And it definitely isn't the 'safest'.
As-if the body-armor suites and quarantining wasn't a dead give away.
The U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power To Fuel the AI Boom
No. The US needs more nuclear power to fuel whatever the citizens composing the market desire.
The future of word-guessers is unclear, to say nothing of their need for exhorbitant amounts of power and re-orienting the grid long term around such efforts primarily is misguided.
Edit: And now I see from the URL that the original title was more prudent. SMH
Maybe it's to fuel AI. Maybe it's to fuel Bitcoin. It's a safe bet there's a huge conflict of interest
And how much more power will we need when the average schlub turns over 100% of their decision making and life management to AI?
None. Don't you watch documentaries, Coppertop?
"The human body generates more bioelectricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 BTUs of body heat."
Check out how 'clean' and 'reliable' Chernobyl is ... Fukushima?
I'm not against nuclear but political cheer-leading it is stupid.
Require it to carry massive disaster insurance (be held responsible) and let it succeed on it's own merits. The #'s won't make it nearly as successful as those cheer-leading it and that's probably why so many want to politically cheer-lead it ... To shovel costs off onto the taxpayers yet again.
While I get your point, I’m going to guess there’s been some technological advancement in nuclear power generation, to include safety measures, in the fifty-plus years since the Chernobyl and Fukushima reactors were built.
Not enough technological advancement to clean-up the Chernobyl site still...... So I'm still skeptical that the taxpayer won't be held responsible for-it along the line and therefore becoming a subsidized disaster.
Riiiight. Because we're going to build plants with Soviet-era safeguards (none) or on a seismic fault where there's a high probability of getting hit with an earthquake and a tsunami, instead of something even safer than Three Mile Island which had a partial meltdown that was almost completely contained.
Your collectivist "[WE]'re going to build plants" certainly isn't any basis of assurance that "taxpayer won't be held responsible for-it along the line".
Who do you think is going to pay for increased safety and safeguards?
Taxpayer is currently on the hook for any nuclear disaster. Under the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (of 1957). It was created because there was no way private insurance companies were going to cover the risks. After further 'information' about what private insurance would cover, it was discovered that the taxpayer still had to be on the hook. So it was extended in 1966, 1976, 1987, 2002, 2003, 2017, and 2024. Now covered until 2045
There was, of course, no discussion on Reason of the 2024 legislation which sets the insurance paid by companies at $300 million per site and $100 million per reactor. Anything over that (pooled by the industry) is on the taxpayer. On the bright side - Massie was a no presumably for libertarian reasons.
Fukushima had already cost $100 billion by 2022 with an estimated further $100 billion projected in future - which will of course only go up.
Further it is a VERY safe bet that since the industry passes costs and risks to taxpayer - that they also take short cuts on safety, siting, etc. That was the real reason that the conflict between regulators and industry occurred long before Three Mile Island. Very few 'new' reactors started construction after 1974 - as costs grew dramatically during the 1970's.
Some people require 100% safety of everything. If everyone had this problem, nothing would get done, ever!
I'm just requiring responsibility (i.e. Justice be ensured). Disaster insurance (liability fund) is a good way to ensure that.
If JFree is correct, "It was created because there was no way private insurance companies were going to cover the risks."
That's a pretty good free-market teller that the juice isn't worth the squeeze in the #'s. Gov-Gun 'stealing' it destroys Justice as well as takes all the "juice is worth the squeeze" out-of the equation corruptively.
The federal government limits the liability of nuclear plant operators. Libertarians would kill the nuclear industry by removing those limits. It is interesting that Reason would promote an industry that has received protection from the government like no other in history.
STEP 1: Send in Chuck Norris and a couple of teenage girls to take over Greenland.
STEP 2: Three hours later, start construction of 10,000 nuclear power plants in what is now Trumpahoma.
STEP 3: Sue the AP for refusing to call our 51st state "Trumpahoma".
STEP 4: Profit.
Front/Back- Booking Photo/'Fist and Flag' photo with "Don't Mess With Trumpahoma" T-shirts for everyone!
It's nice to be understood.
What is wrong with profit? If I decide to build a power plant and sell the electricity it generates, I should be able to get a return on my investment.
Are you joking or are you really anti-Capitalist?
Lol. There’s that legendary progressive sense of humor!
Charlie hall, folks!
History shows nuclear power advocacy comes with high bamboozle the public risk. Get that out of the picture, and it would be much easier politically to get nuclear going.
Reassurance ought to be easy to come by. Just add a requirement that before any more nuclear capacity gets approved, all existing nuclear waste gets cited in permanent safe storage, at the expense of the nuclear advocates.
That will demonstrate not only fiscal capacity, but also the political clout necessary to make nuclear safe and reliable. Without such assurances, count on more and worse bamboozles.
How about making a couple of breeder reactors to create new fuel from nuclear waste thus reducing the amount of waste. The Green movement has it's roots in the Cold War. It was used to try to destabilize NATO and the US. One of the ploys was to discredit breeder reactors as creators of weapons material.
Breeder reactors would be great sources of nuclear fuel for terrorists and rogue states. Their safety is unknown. Civilian uranium reactors have a 100 percent safety record in the US -- not a single fatality ever.
"History shows nuclear power advocacy comes with high bamboozle the public risk..."
Bullshit:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/archive/2013_kharecha_02/
History shows nuclear power advocacy comes with high bamboozle the public risk.
Yup. Enviro whackos have to put on their fake science and fake economist masks in order bamboozle people into thinking that people who objectively recognize the highest power-density, lowest-waste energy source on the planet are "advocates".
Case in point regarding masks and bamboozling:
Just add a requirement that before any more nuclear capacity gets approved, all existing nuclear waste gets cited in permanent safe storage, at the expense of the nuclear advocates.
You're a socialist with no conception of how markets work wearing a mask that doesn't cover your fat face.
If you were the least bit scientific, you would require waste storage for all sources equally, funded by the respective consumers. If you were the least bit economic, you'd recognize that's how markets work intrinsically. But you're neither of those things and you don't want markets or energy production, that you have no say over one way or the other without bamboozling people, to work that way. You want to pretend that nuclear energy can/does/will summon world-ending demons and that solar, wind, etc., produces nothing but volts and rainbow unicorn. You dress it up with where you think the expenses should come from and "permanent safe storage" like you've considered contingencies and "externalities" when, really, you're just above abjectly retarded and don't have the first fucking clue what any of it means or costs or how the costs and risks are defrayed and are just trying to bamboozle people about your demons and unicorn farts.
One day they will have all the power they need for data centers - but no one will be able to afford their own electric bill and this won't be able to ask CharGPT to make them fake porn of celebrities.
I think this is the plot of a post-apocalypse dystopian film
I’ll bet you say that a lot.
Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair, molly.
Just a reminder about what AI will do for us.
"" Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”""
https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/16/oracle-ceo-larry-ellison-says-that-ai-will-someday-track-your-every-move/
We would be in a golden age right now if it weren't for boomer dipshits who don't know the difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear warhead.
I blame every boomer white chick with a peace sign painted on her cheeks dancing to b-tier classic rock , protesting nuclear and thinking she's saving the world. They are too dumb to be allowed to vote.
Yeah, I was 8 years old when TMI happened and remember all the hippy dippy teachers at my school pasted “no nukes” stickers on their cars. This, of course, was a gift to coal, oil, and gas which they are bitching about now.
And what about all those deaths from TMI?! (zero, BTW)
total false flag in retrospect I'm sure it was done on purpose.
The problem was that the utility that ran TMI lied like a MAGA troll as to what was going on. It turned out that there were no serious long term effects from the accident, and had the utility been upfront about what had happened, the nuclear industry would be in a lot better shape.
charliehall is a Brandon troll; fuck off and die, asshole
"AI is bringing enormous benefits to consumers and businesses."
I am usually automatically suspicious of vague and unsupported claims like this, especially when they are broad and sweeping! This claim is no exception. Someone please explain to me what "enormous benefits" AI has brought to us so far?
It's making it easier for illiterate public school graduates to get college degrees.
Higher dividends for companies that generate electricity.
Using nukes for cleaner and more efficient energy is a good idea providing the waste from it can be destroyed safely.
But the watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) do not want that.
The watermelons want all of us peasants to live in caves, eat bark and drink from streams "to save the environment" as they are driven around in the gas-guzzling limousines to their mansions as they dine on caviar, filet mignon and sip champagne cocktails.
Find a way to eliminate nuclear waste, and not only will it provide a much more efficient way to use energy, but it will also put a giant weed up the ass of leftist filth.
"Why I changed my mind about nuclear power: Transcript of Michael Shellenberger's TEDx Berlin 2017"
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/11/21/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-nuclear-power-transcript-of-michael-shellenbergers-tedx-berlin-2017
For reference: here is a mountain of pet coke on Chicago's South Side that has to be routinely hosed down (one is also covered in the backgroud) in order to keep the dust coating nearby neighborhoods with the soot.
It can be and is used for other purposes. It burns similar to coal and has more than enough carbon to serve as an alloying material. However, if coal gets cheap or demand for steel or aluminum goes one way or the other, the coke piles up and you can't just whip out the visqueen and cover a pile that you're currently adding to or taking away from.
NB: This isn't an argument that we shouldn't use petroleum products. This is an argument that "OMG! Where will we store nuclear waste!" is like the "Roundup/GMOs cause cancer!" argument that ignores that paraquat and other herbicides, including organic, are no-shit toxic and no-shit directly cause nerve damage, intercellular damage, etc. acutely.
paraquat and other herbicides, including organic, are no-shit toxic and no-shit directly cause nerve damage, intercellular damage, etc. acutely
And for some 50+ yrs. the vast majority of the world has been A-OK with *that* risk rather than starving to death.
It will take a colossal nationwide power failure lasting several days in the middle of summer or winter before enough greentards come around to nukes and get out of the way.
We'll see if they learned anything from Spain and Portugal last week. I'm skeptical; those are willfully ignorant people, and the rest of us don't have enough 2X4s to get their attention.
Texas had that a few years ago but still can't admit that preventing ERCOT from meeting standards the rest of the country meets would be a good thing. The politicians chose instead to lie and to blame wind turbines. Wind turbines are very reliable in Norway and Alaska, but apparently not in Texas? This is what happens when the fossil fuel industry has bought your state, lock, stock, and barrel.
I long wondered why the fossil fuel industry didn't own California. It was a bigger oil boom state than Texas, at least for a while, and the boom happened earlier. It turns out that the railroads had already bought the state and the oilmen couldn't outbid the railroad barons. But they did make Los Angeles a bigger oil boom city than Houston -- to this day there are oil wells in residential areas in Los Angeles.
So Texas alone needs 99 new gigawatts of power just for AI/Crypto farms. But they also need ~25-50 gigawatts for the growing electric vehicle support.
This doesn't even begin to include the strengthening of the grid required to support these theoretical new power sources.
I feel pretty safe saying that none of this is going to happen within the timelines or according to the needs outlined.