How AI is Fueling the Rise of Nuclear Energy - Why Wyoming Should Care

by Wyoming Liberty Group

What's one of the driving forces fueling renewed interest in nuclear energy in Wyoming and elsewhere?

In brief: AI.

It's important that we in the Cowboy State better understand the forces moving behind the scenes that may shape our future. So, follow this chain reaction of reasoning: Artificial intelligence is in its global infancy but its vast potential (and pitfalls) is already recognized.

As a result, there's a proverbial gold rush among powerful interests that want to be first to dominate the field of artificial intelligence. Being first to market with real, full-fledged AI that can move and sway industries is, of course, priceless. But here's the thing: AI requires huge amounts of energy to build and expand as a viable form of technology, for real-world applications. And where can that energy, already in short supply, come from?

The answer: Nuclear power.

At least, that's the thinking of the big companies scrambling to reach the mountaintop of AI. It also might help explain why political and business forces have resurrected the idea of Wyoming being the place to store nuclear waste. Because there is no creation of nuclear power without the creation of its byproduct—nuclear waste, which can take tens of thousands of years before it is no longer radioactive and dangerous to humanity.

But the question of toxic waste has taken a decided backseat to recent announcements about nuclear energy related to the rise of AI. Tech companies need tons of power for data centers that can train and operate huge artificial intelligence programs. Yes, train. AI models apparently can learn and problem solve, based on the data it's given.

The idea is, AI can analyze massive amounts of data, thus identifying patterns and other things that we humans might overlook. Whether that's a good thing—or a scary prospect—is another matter altogether.

But the point here is that AI needs massive amounts of electricity to process and run large datasets. AI uses complex models that also call for huge amounts of computational power. The way that it's explained to lay people (us) is that AI models use huge amounts of power to respond to people's questions and to then produce responses. In the lingo of the industry, so-called generative artificial intelligence isn't just spewing out set responses; rather, it can produce new content, whether it's texts or images or something else, based on what people ask it or put into it.

For instance, Google recently said that it plans to acquire electricity from nuclear reactors by Kairos Power in Alameda, California. The first would come onboard in about five years with more nuclear reactors used over the next several years.

Amazon, for its part, said it plans to invest about $500 million in X-Energy Reactor Company in Rockville, Maryland, and will purchase power produced by that company's nuclear reactors in Washington state. That's just one of several nuclear deals that Amazon is undertaking.

Microsoft, a third tech titan, recently said it plans to purchase power from a company that will use a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island, a site in Pennsylvania that is better known for its nuclear meltdown in 1979.

These tech companies understand the basics—that artificial intelligence requires the creation of massive data centers—sometimes called data farms—that can crunch numbers.

Another power player—Elon Musk—has already built an AI data center in Memphis, Tennessee, that is using the amount of power for a city.

All of these data centers are already gobbling up huge amounts of power—an estimated 3 percent of all U.S. consumption, according to some studies. That number is projected to climb to 9 percent by 2030. And the experts already can see what that means—that the existing power grid can't meet those growing needs. Indeed, Goldman Sachs expects a 160 percent jump in power consumed by data centers in about five years.

Those who are rushing to use nuclear power for AI try to allay concerns by saying that these new nuclear reactors are smaller, cheaper and safer than the old nuclear plants. They also like to note that nuclear power offers a source of power that is cleaner for the environment than other sources of power that come from fossil fuels. They also say that nuclear power is more stable and reliable than renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar.

However, they often overlook the inherent dangers of nuclear power. Nuclear plants can fail, and they generate highly radioactive waste that must be stored somewhere. Currently, the best solutions proposed involve burying it deep underground for thousands of years—an option nobody seems to want in their backyard—or keeping it in above-ground dry casks. This is where Wyoming enters the conversation. Some proponents suggest that the Cowboy State should serve as the central repository for others' nuclear waste. But is that truly what we want?