Why Amazon, Microsoft, Google And Meta Are Investing In Nuclear Power

[@Aubue]

I appreciate the focus on debunking old fears about nuclear power

[@brianbosch3628]

Nuclear power is still not the future. Overall, it's declining. Renewable energy is the go to.

[@G-Man-half-life]

@@brianbosch3628 Nuclear energy is the future nuclear energy can even produce more energy then wind or solar combined also wind and solar have limitations. Solar energy does not work if it is night time or if it is cloudy ☁️ outside as for wind energy it only works if it is windy outside if there is no wind then you do not have power being produced nuclear energy can produce energy 24 hours per day 7 days per week 365 days per year without any problems rain 🌧️ or shine ☀️.

[@joesmith4443]

That’s great, but now tell these Big Tech companies to clean up the ocean from all their discarded devices and fund the recycling (not taxpayers!). They deliberately use proprietary screws and design them to be non-upgradable so you’re forced to buy the latest and greatest.

[@person-jw7vb]

​@@brianbosch3628 Proof ?!?

[@sai7913]

@@brianbosch3628 What is your basis for saying that? Nuclear is clean, safe, reliable. It can provide far more energy and is not intermittent like solar or wind. Not saying it is an all-encompassing solution to everything, but to say that it's not the future is baseless.

[@MottoGS]

I’m glad increased energy demands surrounding big tech and AI is getting the recognition it deserves. Great video!

[@sutats]

It's being diverted to cryptocurrency mining.

[@timoooo7320]

😂

[@robertlee8805]

These energy developers should've started years ago with these tech companies or visa versa to design and implement these new clean, abundant, and long lasting energy infrastructures/industries and how to pay for all the large amounts of funding to make this happen. I sure don't want all the electricity be siphoned by these AI and Data Centers and not getting to the whole population. Including our neighboring countries and allies.

[@jameylane1591]

@MottoGS - You must be joking.

[@jfinchPC12]

That's what it took to get the left on board.

[@RadialSeeker113]

Nuclear power makes so much sense. Halting progress on it was stupid and set the transition to clean energy back by decades.

[@1968Christiaan]

No, uneconomic no full-lifecyle solution (no waste disposal) and projects were never completed on time and in budget. Have a look here for "engineering with rosie" or the great presentation about the non-economics of nuclear (I think the professor was from Harvard or Stanford). You can also google "hinkley c" - it is a real eye-opener.

[@budman4224]

Nuclear fusion power plants make more sense than fission energy. No one wants spent radioactive fuel rods buried in their, figurative, back yard

[@Steven-tl8fs]

Blame the coal industry

[@jameylane1591]

@RadialSeeker113 - Is that what the people in Fukushima and Chernobyl said? How about Three Mile Island? You're a shill.

[@cameronf3343]

@@Steven-tl8fs We do, but we blame the people who supported cutting nuclear at the societal level too. Coal propaganda can only go so far. It’s all of our own individual responsibilities to do better than being easily deceived. Many failed. And that’s on them, whether coal mining companies made “convincing arguments” or not.

[@petermatthews1534]

Top tier moustache

[@anitastudios1859]

🤣

[@robertlee8805]

Looks like someone who took over a country and wanted more of his dominance into other countries. Why do they grow such large facial hairs. It hides the facial expressions. Also identity.

[@fpp6670]

@@anitastudios1859 What is up with that '70's stache? I didn't hear a word he said....so distracting!!!

[@PrydeWater901]

That mustache has a credit score!

[@MusicSustainsMe]

Nuclear powered moustache

[@wisdomking8305]

1:18 guy look like he came out of sherlock holmes movie

[@hifzullahozkaya]

Yep, the moustache and the jumper steals the show

[@accoomes20]

He looks like an AI filter. Like Tom Hanks in Polar Express.

[@robertlee8805]

Ah. That's where I saw that mustache look from.

[@robertlee8805]

​@@accoomes20Tom Hanks' looks much better. Now since you mentioned that movie I've gotta itch to watch it again for the 4th time. Great movie.

[@fpp6670]

Nah...Village People!

[@djp1234]

2:23 is this guy cosplaying Nikola Tesla?

[@blu0065]

If he is, I like it.

[@redmundperrz7234]

😅

[@nottheone582]

hes got rizz

[@Themooman29]

I like how nuclear energy is only coming around because it’s trying to supply energy for big firms and not because anyone wants to make cheap long lasting energy. And if all these firms demand high energy and then make nuclear energy, all that extra new energy is going to the firms to do more. Essentially erasing all energy gains

[@skierpage]

Solar is the cheapest energy, and solar backed by batteries to extend supply is also getting cheaper. That's why it's the majority of new generation everywhere in the world. Go make your own electricity. Variable demands like EV recharging and space pre-heating and -cooling are a great fit for wind and solar. Tech firms needing to run AI training continuously have different needs

[@cueva_mc]

Market forces are not driven by moral values unfortunately

[@ronhot3774]

@@skierpage Except at night and during cloudy days when we have to fire up coal plants at an exorbitant cost, thus making solar overall more expensive. Solar also requires alot of land, which also impacts flora and fauna. Lastly there is the issue of waste.

[@noone9084]

@@ronhot3774 And nuclear impacts the same.... Solar issues isn't clouds and night its long lasting storage and transmission. Solar is not more expensive than nuclear that's way too much of a stretch your implying in your statement. In terms of waste nuclear is the worst one.

[@stevetopop2028]

​@noone9084 nuclear waste can be safely stored while radiation decays and a good bit of the waste can be renewed. The environmental cost of creating big batteries for solar storage or EVs should be included in the total cost.

[@farhadkarimi]

That moustache is crazy

[@PrismTheory]

If he had a monocle too it would just top it off for me

[@MichaelNomura-i9n]

Who? Pippa?

[@PeetBankster]

If the AI suggests growing fields of humans to harvest body heat, let us know.

[@abdul-kabiralegbe5660]

Then there'll be no need for Neo.🥺

[@dancalmusic]

I’m asking ChatGPT why do we need more energy…

[@joesmith4443]

It’s better to ask how we can recycle old electronic devices that end up in our oceans

[@good-tn9sr]

watch the video bud. Keep buying more phones, laptops, EVs, all while having a growing population. Also Machine learning and AI needs tons of energy to work and get better.

[@joesmith4443]

@@good-tn9sr Yep, it’s unsustainable to keep going down this path, but I guess by then all these tech CEOs and investors will have the means to escape to Mars once they make Earth uninhabitable.

[@beachbento]

also apparently these large data centers need filtered water for their cooling systems, so every question is potentially taking 3 cups of water, and evaporating it into air 💀

[@Lostcause202]

Space bridge . Making real life orbit city that we know from the jetson cartoon. More robots . Flying car. We need more energy to make earth futuristic . Just an optimism pov . 🤷🏻

[@pasangafavmsq8728]

Evil corporate 🤬

[@murilovs3827]

No mention at all to nuclear waste? Is this problem solved with current tech?

[@floridiantv]

Tes

[@la7era1u54]

That was all overblown. The amount of the harmful waste that takes a long time to decay is very very small. Nuclear has always been the safest way we get energy, and it's not even close. The amount of injuries and deaths attributed to nuclear energy is many times less than every other method we use, excluding solar and wind, but they take a long time to scale. And they do have new tech to help with waste and meltdown-proof reactors. Thorium Salt reactors are a huge leap forward. They produce much less of long lived waste and they can't have a runaway reaction

[@r1_anon]

Yes

[@sleepykitten2168]

Here's something that may surprise you about nuclear waste: Nuclear energy isn't the biggest source of it. Coal plants are, because they produce something called fly ash, which is radioactive. The point is, no one ever talks about the problem with nuclear waste by coal plants, only the waste caused by nuclear plants. And that should tell you something about how that argument is used: It's a scare tactic. Nuclear waste is a non-issue. It's extremely cheap per unit energy made to dig out a large underground area that will never be uncovered, put the nuclear waste there, and seal it back up. Cover it in concrete to prevent leaks, and you're done.

[@DarkBitesz]

@@sleepykitten2168most waste is stored on site in large concrete containers that are bomb proof. The waste is being stored onsite for the life of the plant and hopefully in the future we will recycle it

[@jaginsburg]

How on Earth can you call yourselves reporters and not talk about nuclear waste? There are roughly 90,000 tons of spent fuel being stashed at reactors because there is no place to store it. Storage is going to be super pricey and paid for by taxpayers, not Big Tech. That’s a giant, whopping externality. The storage issue also isn’t limited to the storage, but also how all the spent fuel gets there. This isn’t cheap or easy. Also, while nuclear may not generate carbon emissions, it has a environmental footprint. Uranium mines are tricky. You have to blast a whole lot of rock to get what you need. Preparing the uranium is another pricey process. It takes a lot of cement to create “caskets” to hold the radioactive fuels. And in conventional plants, massive amounts of water for cooling. To pose as “green” simply there isn’t a smokestack, is greenwashing. And your entire CNBC reporting team fell for it.

[@radretro3777]

There are many types of nuclear reactors that you may not know about, such as Thorium. I suggest doing further research on these as they address your concerns. Nuclear technology has come a long way and I think it's just going to get better.

[@momo8200]

This nuclear craze will fizzle out for the similar reasons nuclear has been slow to come online in the past 30 years. Long construction times, safety regulations, and shortage of skilled workers. Same for SMRs. Renewables and battery storage are cheaper and faster to build.

[@WinterXR7]

Nuclear is 24/7 and it’s not subject to the weather, also nuclear takes up less land and it generates more power.

[@jameylane1591]

@@WinterXR7 Really? Was Fukushima not subject to the weather? HAHAHAHAHA! Get real dude. You know nothing.

[@michaelayeni177]

Large tech companies won't let it fizzle out lol. They will lobby and force its way into changing government regulation

[@dylzp]

That’s nice and all but renewables and battery storage is not going to be anywhere near enough for the world that we are coming in to. Data centres, artificial intelligence and electric vehicles alone are going to swallow the world’s power grids by themselves, that’s even before we get to the requirements for every day power use and utilities. If we are going to see up to a 75% increase on current power demands by 2050 then conventional means aren’t going to quite cut it unfortunately.

[@Andre-95]

@@dylzp Lookup how much energy that comes from the sun hits the earth everyday...

[@ConorRyan-kw4sx]

Not once in this infomercial was the issue of nuclear waste mentioned. That's the scary elephant in the room.

[@DavidLangford-v9s]

Cheap energy is key to prosperity- but only if it is used for productive purposes.

[@jameylane1591]

Only if it doesn't produce highly toxic waste and it's not a risk to destroying large swaths of the Earth. Did you forget that part? Seriously.

[@DjDownBadd]

If the damage of nuclear is socialized- so should the gains. Tbh.

[@toddarmstrong1909]

What happens to the waste from the nuclear plants large or modular? How and who will deal with nuclear waste? Why was this not addressed in the opposition section of this story?

[@jflowers090]

I can't believe it's taking us this long to come back to nuclear.

[@skierpage]

Wind and solar got cheap, nuclear got more and more expensive and slow as reactor construction dwindled.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

Unfortunately, it's being used for a very dark purpose.

[@notaspectator]

21% energy source in US is renewable. The chart and data showed. Impressive work!

[@Lumber91]

Pretty much 40% since you’d count nuclear.

[@sarkaranish]

@@Lumber91 nuclear isnt renewable but it is clean. when uranium is used up it can't be reverted to its original state

[@dukerex1285]

@@sarkaranish used uranium can be recycled im pretty sure

[@mrbaab5932]

​@@dukerex1285Yes, Russia 🇷🇺 does that.

[@sarkaranish]

@@dukerex1285 It can be recycled, but it can't be renewed is what I'm saying. It will expire after some time and we will eventually run out of uranium. It's a clean source of energy, it's just not infinite.

[@isaeahvus]

AI is continuously simulating what kind of underwear I might buy tomorrow - and it has a high power demand

[@RustMoments]

constellation energy $CEG owns 55% of all the USA nuclear facilities, the largest pure way to invest:)

[@urbanstrencan]

To many countries turned it's back to nuclear power, now they see we need it. Great video

[@Khneefer]

New nuclear is most expiensive solution for decarbonisation. SMR works only in power point for now.

[@athek7081]

Nuclear power is the gift from the future.

[@SunbeanCat]

The gift that will end soon. The planet is running out of Uranium

[@1968Christiaan]

That is funny... "gift" in German means "poison".. which is actually nearer the truth.

[@budman4224]

Nuclear fusion maybe. But certainly not our current nuclear plants

[@jameylane1591]

@@1968Christiaan Exactly. The bots are out here heavy.

[@jameylane1591]

Einstein said it was a stupid way to boil water. Have you ever heard of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and three Mile Island? Were those gifts from the future too? You realize you can't go near Fukushima or Chernobyl right? You realize all the spent fuel has to be stored on site because they failed the Yucca Mountain Project? You know that right?

[@laurawilliams2445]

Did he just call Three Mile Island and Chernobyl "benign accidents"? While I agree that we need nuclear power, his comment was beyond stupid.

[@jonasbaine3538]

Get ready for massive over generalizations and understatements about nuclear power topics. All the “know it alls” tech people are about to flood into the nuclear industry…

[@Jaba88]

Born when changes needed to be made were announced in ‘88 I’m like 🤷🏾‍♂️ it was probably disincentivized through advertising by big oil & gas because of how far more efficient it is.

[@robertm5855]

Oil and gas companies sponsored environmental activists that were against nuclear power.

[@davidc2682]

Funny, they tell us there is not enough power generation for electric vehicles. But, they'll make certain there is enough for AI, crypto and data centers.

[@hugochan2821]

So, CNBC convinced people that AI and data centers put so much strain in the power grid that only nuclear power works. But electric cars also put too much strain on the power grid so it is not feasible? What about Tesla energy. Unprecedented demand for batteries to store renewable energies so that they can be used at night.

[@calc1657]

These tech companies are each worth over a trillion dollars. Dropping $20 billion on a nuclear plant is not such a big deal.

[@royh6526]

I certainly hope they go with new safe, cheap Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors in stead of old fashion LWR reactors. The small reactors mentioned are still old obsolete LWR types.

[@SanjeevSatheesan]

Since the video mainly focuses on the increasing demand for nuclear power, when discussing about the opposition, a point or two regarding the management of nuclear waste would have been appreciated.

[@sutats]

Solar, wind, hydro energy have become unpopular. Nuclear is fine in peace time and natural stability.

[@joesmith4443]

Neither are Antitrust practices doesn’t mean we should celebrate vigilantes

[@putnam120]

Too bad we've never really been on peace times

[@TimBarnesGoneGolfing]

SMR investment (althought costly now) provides a lot of long term benefits to humanity. Rapid deployment in emergencies (when it scales to this level), stable power, off world power, reliable base power. Infrastructural abundance should be an absolute goal for innovation, creativity, and development (energy, transportation).

[@darkwoodmovies]

Crazy that it takes corporations needing to boost their profit with the latest hype to do common sense things in the USA.

[@skierpage]

It's not common sense, it's high-risk expensive investments that won't pay off for a decade, if at all. Meanwhile wind and solar, increasingly backed by battery storage, continue to be the majority of new generation because they're quick and cheap.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

@@skierpage Common sense from an environmental standpoint.

[@blu0065]

these AI models aren't profitable. they just want to sink less cash into it.

[@MisterSherlock]

If i was a billionaire, I’d invest in nuclear too. It’s safe and cleaner than everything else and the nuclear waste is used for the A-10 Warthog

[@PenelopePitstop0078]

Waahht?! Really, for the Warthog!? Googling now… I’m USAF veteran & the Warthog is my favorite❣️

[@budman4224]

The Warthog doesn't use spent nuclear waste. It uses depleted uranium rounds in its primary weapon. Depleted uranium is a by product of enriching uranium

[@JT_771]

Sorta ... depleted uranium (used for A-10 ammo, some other ammo, DU armor, etc) isn't waste from the reactor. But it is a byproduct of taking natural uranium and refining it to get the uranium you need for nuc reactors. So we get it as a side product while producing reactor-grade fuel for the nuc plant.

[@jameylane1591]

@MisterSherlock - Used for the discontinued A-10 Warthog? Really BOT? REALLY? They were going to BURY all of it at the Yucca Mountain complex but that failed. So now they have to keep all the toxic spent fuel onsite at every reactor complex. Now let's talk about Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Isalnd. Pff.

[@supa3ek]

lol you sheep are clueless !!!

[@private_krapfen950]

Where do you get the uranium from?

[@ReiserVergeDelfin-fv4hq]

Where do you get your copper, cobalt, lithium, aluminium for renewables?

[@aaronalquiza9680]

there's a lot of uranium on earth. more than lithium.

[@computingbee]

china 😂

[@nriik4081]

How'd they get Nikola Tesla to do this interview??

[@aaronalquiza9680]

with AI of course!

[@pjeverly]

Very nice video. Keep up the great work.

[@briank.3539]

It sounds nice, just make sure that it is secured.

[@davidsamuelson2089]

I’m sure there will be no issues with maga-corps owning nuclear facilities when cutting costs at all costs.

[@itsundisclosed]

Oklo is worth a mention. Sam Altman is chairman of the board of directors and an investor. OpenAI will definitely be tapping them for energy to power ChatGPT.

[@sjoer]

We knew all of this over 20 years ago...

[@Buickman95]

What nuclear stocks can i buy?

[@pasco4]

CEG

[@jameylane1591]

I would focus on getting your life together first.

[@CjStyles]

Brookfield renewable is an option. They have a large agreement to provide energy to Microsoft. Not many nuclear sites you can invest in. I’ve also been buying into uranium producers

[@kiprotichsalat2460]

Brookfield Energy

[@deldia]

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but the way SMRs are presented in this video is a misrepresentation of reality. While the designs are real, they're still highly speculative that the economics are viable. They may well be a damaging distraction from traditional nuclear. We do not know yet.

[@KevinLeroyGrant]

The main problem with AI is that it's being used where it's not needed and creating unnecessary waste in the process. It probably wouldn't be as bad if it's usage was more self-contained, but it's being pushed on consumers hard because they invested too hard in the technology. I lowkey hope it crashes at some point because it's kind of getting ridiculous at this point.

[@damienchall8297]

It won't. And ai will only get into people's lives more

[@skierpage]

If you're not using AI to be more productive in your job, you will be replaced by somebody who is.

[@supa3ek]

AI is overhyped ! Its like a more powerful version of siri on your apple phone ! Its a gimmick that nobody uses ! In industrial applications no corporation will leave vital reasources in control of just ai !

[@damienchall8297]

@supa3ek this is hilarious ignorance and broke thinking

[@damodaralluri8988]

I made a case study on this in my MBA conference this is a interesting topic

[@dzaki8331]

Nuclear is Love Nuclear is Life

[@dizzyman123]

The A1 unlocks the innovation in new marketing and advertising in the 🏫 creative industries 🏎

[@WilliamKirkland-j4r]

Like many older men, I'm not an eager fan of Big Tech however, If they are willing to support and develop new Atomic power, I in - 100%. Thanks for the information.

[@cameronf3343]

This is good. Because no matter what, engineers and CFOs will not let those “one query uses 10x the energy of one search” forever. It’s too bad for their bottom line. They help build nuclear, the AI becomes more energy efficient to save money and cut down on heat, and then the excess nuclear energy will be sent to the grid, which will thus help speed up societal clean energy goals.

[@alrickyt9075]

My question is why were they turned off to begin with?

[@ProfoundFamiliarity]

perhaps economical reasons, whereas Big Tech could invest heavily, which might make it viable again

[@djbobby224]

Big oil, coal, and gas kept the government in their back pockets

[@skierpage]

As they reached end of life and required more maintenance and updates, utility companies shifted to cheaper energy generation; initially gas plants and now cheap and quick wind and solar.

[@darinherrick9224]

Because they are so expensive to that they bankrupted the Soviet Union.

[@CarbinKid]

Mark Nelsons' mustache is powered by nuclear fusion.

[@ChaseMoabery]

Very insightful

[@ricobernaldo9969]

Forget nuclear energy Mark Nelson is now my new energy source 😆

[@davidw1576]

excellent report !

[@WealthbuilderzTV]

That guys mustache is funny to me but otherwise this was great information.

[@la7era1u54]

This makes me astonished at how incredibly efficient the human brain is. It is the most efficient computer ever

[@Robert-vh2cl]

Geothermal energy, lots of reliable energy below our feet and no one can jack up your rates because of monopoly and zero environmental risks. 🎉

[@PenelopePitstop0078]

🩷YES🩷 Just one of our natural resources, but where’s the greedy profit in that?

[@robertlee8805]

@Robert How far down do they need to be to be effective?

[@ericneo2]

These companies will operate nuclear power plants like their own businesses. On a shoe string budget with little care about safety, environmental damage or proper disposal of dangerous goods. Allowing these companies nuclear material is asking for a disaster. These companies operate for investor profits and don't even dispose of their rubbish in the responsible way, what makes you think they'll dispose of nuclear waste any differently?

[@DinosaurusTerbaik]

that pippa stevens girl's eye-liner is so intense.

[@Rene-uz3eb]

Nuclear is expensive but these companies are the ones that should pay for extra secure baseline power demand

[@SamuelHauptmannvanDam]

0:40 the blurriness makes it look like it is recorded in the 80s. :D

[@bunnatang2081]

AI war. Ai makes easy, Ai makes harder, Ai makes damages, Ai makes heals,, Ai makes crimes, Ai makes security. Human will have shorter life span

[@NerdyX90]

SMRs are the future...

[@budman4224]

Just like oil, there's only so much nuclear material in the world. Money would be better invested in nuclear fusion

[@suites.74]

The research required for fusion could benefit from fission power lol. It's not black and white it's a transition with overlap. ​@@budman4224

[@suites.74]

Also nuclear is way cheaper than oil and gas in the long term, so it's not a zero sum. False dichotomy. ​@@budman4224

[@starsoffyre]

Hopefully the momentum created by tech companies will increase nuclear power adoption overall, not just to support data centres and AI

[@nbooky]

Every GPU card has similar power to a microwave oven (800W+). A typical AI server has up to 8 GPU cards running 24x7. Multiply by thousands of AI servers in a datacenter, it's not only a power problem, but also cooling these high-powered servers.

[@williamgirard7484]

4:32 -> Poor CT. We have a large nuclear plant, but it was completely forgotten about in the map of US nuclear sites

[@ctadam12]

Was that Tom Selleck

[@aaronalquiza9680]

that wasn't his first rodeo

[@mikeshafer]

So exciting !!! And it’s good to see people fighting the old disinformation about nuclear power. I look forward to nuclear power providing over 50% of the US load.

[@lifesblood]

It's not just about electricity, if the grid can't handle the load

[@kazuoVAL]

Atroic is gunna love this

[@kokovox]

The investment is very little compared to how much a nuclear power plant usually costs.

[@M3M3M32]

Anyone who thinks Nuclear energy is emessions free, clearly do not understand the process of how uranium mines works. Or care about how the waste disposal nuclear reactors creates.

[@antiquehealbot6543]

I think you never ran math.

[@mememan9890]

Care to elaborate?

[@G-Man-half-life]

Actually nuclear waste can be reused and put back into a nuclear reactor nuclear waste is not really an issue anymore nuclear waste can be recycled ♻️ and reused which means nuclear waste storage sites won’t be needed anymore.

[@JohnThinks]

Same could be said about literally any clean energy source. And nuclear waste disposal is a non issue, way overblown.

[@pistolen87]

So what? No energy is emission free

[@tcwang8697]

Can media stop using old symbolic photos for nuclear power? I remember new nuclear power plants look quite differently

[@jcdelrio100]

SMRs are the best

[@nosh092]

When big business needs cheaper energy, they finally start investing in more sustainable energy

[@skierpage]

As the video explains, tech companies were already investing in renewable energy. They have bought gigawatts of renewable electricity purchasing agreements that funded solar and wind construction (good), and renewable energy credits to offset emissions with things like tree planting (dubious). But the cost of providing low-carbon electricity 24 hours a day is so high that they're looking to nuclear as well.

[@louieisme]

I just hope Australia follows this path and big tech invests in.

[@MorrisBenton48]

Interesting video! One question - the GAI data centers are being built now while the nuclear plants won't be providing power for at least another 5 years - or realistically longer given the normal regulatory delays and public scrutiny. How will the DC's receive base power in the meantime? More natural gas plants?

[@skierpage]

Wind and solar will continue to be the majority of new generation in the USA and everywhere in the world, because they're quick and cheap. When they are not generating, and battery storage has run out after several hours, other dispatchable generation has to kick in: hydroelectric power and alas un-natural gas plants. So yes, more gas plants may be needed until the hoped-for nuclear plants are actually built in volume in the 2030s, but during all the hours wind and solar are generating we won't be shoveling millions of tons of fossil fuel crap into thermal plants. A big barrier to building solar and wind even faster is the need to build more long-distance electricity transmission.

[@MorrisBenton48]

@@skierpage I assumed wind & solar, but they aren't base power - they are intermittent. The enormous amount of GAI coming on line in the next few years will require base power. One other problem with even natural gas - you can't turn them on and off on a dime. So they have to be kept running all the time. There are, however, some newer generation systems that can be turned on and off quickly. Perhaps that will be the short term answer while we wait for nuclear. Such systems are intended to fill in for disruptions and could be a good complement to wind & solar.

[@aaronalquiza9680]

Fusion energy only has a few billion dollars in investment. Imagine how fast it would progress if we put 60 billion into it (same amount as what Meta wasted on Metaverse and AR).

[@shivalik2004]

Russia hold the key here too. Its the largest exporter of nuclear material.

[@grahamashe9715]

Opposition to abundant energy? You mean by Malthusians?

[@timgodau2839]

Taking about SMRs. Salt molten reactors. At 5:30 of this article

[@Startrance85]

investing heavy into nuclear power and uranium stocks atm, hopefully it will bair fruit in a couple years forward.

[@morrismonet3554]

More like decades. The liberals will tie the permits up in court for that long.

[@HawtSauwce]

The logistics of storing radioactive waste then communicating its whereabouts across the centuries is crazy. It’s just not sustainable. They keep building more data centers to give people tools such as AI, but at significant cost regarding natural resources as a single data center can use 1,000,000 gallons of water each day for cooling.

[@Sodainspace]

Thorium reactors should be the new standard

[@ShoeibShargo]

So which stocks to buy?

[@radretro3777]

This is actually good news.

[@Beldan4]

Nuclear power is great, if you are mature enough to handle it responsibly. I honestly don't see that happening given how irresponsible we are at things even more basic. Besides generating more power is only HALF the problem. The other is infrastructure. These people need to take a page out of Intel's book and maybe make the current power systems we have MORE EFFECIENT instead of trying generate more RAW power. To say nothing about if the current systems can even HANLDE dumping that much more power into them in the first place.

[@michaelayeni177]

This comment section is so healthy

[@KrypTeK702]

Nuclear should have never gone away. We would have had it down and refined the process by now if we kept pushing it

[@Zero0_0_0_3]

what about nuclear waste it is more harmful if not managed properly

[@keli4068]

in China tech company doesn't have to worry about power

[@damienchall8297]

Yes it does. They just build power fast

[@cmdr1911]

I consult for a a large utility. We can't figure out how they plan to power it but we are building the transmission system but we are already maxing out our generation in the area. Lost too much coal production with no replacement. It will be interesting.

[@gauravmukherjee2678]

Why no one talks about thorium or molten salt reactors ??!

[@darinherrick9224]

Because they fantasy at this point.

[@gauravmukherjee2678]

@@darinherrick9224 first active thorium reactor was MSR at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States, which operated from 1965 to 1969. Kakrapar-1: The world's first thorium nuclear reactor, produced in India in 1993. Gobi MSR: The world's first commercial thorium-fueled nuclear reactor, which China plans to complete in the Gobi Desert by 2030

[@Jed-h9v]

uhhhh, if more nuclear power is built and studied, doesn't this create a greater threat of creating more deadly nuclear bombs?

[@Not2day-Satan]

Because the power limits would rise and they don't live near nuclear power plants...

[@gabharri910]

No one wants to live near coal power plants either. I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant.

[@robertlee8805]

Would love to see CNBC do a report on American/North American High Speed Trains development to get these industries into gear to build them out before the we fall behind the Asian countries. We need them so yesterday. Our economies could've been much better and much less pollution if they were run on ELECTRICITY by all these electricity developments.

[@skierpage]

I think the USA is the only country where private companies own the train tracks (apart from the Amtrak High-Speed Rail corridor in the Northeast). Those companies have no interest in electrifying rail; they won't even maintain their tracks or hire personnel to reduce catastrophic collisions and derailments. They and fossil fuel companies and airlines would fight any attempt to change this antiquated state of affairs. Plus despite Mayor Pete's efforts the USA is really bad at big infrastructure projects, so California's High-Speed Rail project is slow and wildly expensive.

[@robertbuskirk6854]

What about the spent fuel rods? They will have to be safely stored and guarded for THOUSANDS of years. Our own government already let us down with Yucca mountain. You can bet a private company will be even worse when they realize the cost.

[@juzzie3178]

That man has the most buttery voice