US govt wants to talk to tech companies about AI electricity demands — eyes nuclear fusion and fission

News
By
published

Nuclear fusion and fission are two options to meet needs.

Circuits making the shape of a brain.
(Image credit: Getty Images)

U.S. President Joe Biden's administration is looking to fast-track talks with tech companies as their demands for electricity to power artificial intelligence data centers continue to grow. Axios reports that this may include more nuclear power, and discussed the issue with Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

The increasing need for power is a "problem" Granholm told Axios, clear to distinguish that demand from AI itself. "AI itself isn't a problem, because AI could help to solve the problem," Granholm said last week, according to the publication.

One solution to addressing the power needs may be nuclear power. The report suggests that the Department of Energy is considering an idea that tech companies with huge data centers powering AI models could potentially put "small nuclear plants" nearby.

In 2023, about 18.6% of electricity in the U.S. was generated from nuclear energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Last week, Granholm was in Michigan following the Energy Department's approval of a $1.52 billion loan to restart a nuclear power plant. If the DOE can get tech companies to jump on board nuclear power, it could both address the needs for AI computing as well as accelerate the use of clean energy in the United States.

Some of these big tech companies have already started investing heavily in nuclear fusion — yes, fusion, even though at present no commercially viable fusion reactors exist. Last year, Microsoft signed a deal to purchase power from a nuclear fusion generator by Helion Energy. Considering that Microsoft and OpenAI have reportedly been discussing a new supercomputer that could consume "at least several gigawatts" of power, the need for clean, accessible power is clearly a priority.

Axios suggests another option is nuclear fission, using small modular reactors. That can be an expensive option, however, and Granholm said that the DOE is "trying to crack the code" to lower costs and make it so companies are more willing to consider the reactors.

Companies like Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, Amazon, and Meta clearly aren't slowing down building datacenters and focusing on AI research as it becomes the next big thing. Nvidia and AMD chips, as well as custom chips from other companies, require plenty of power. Nvidia's next-gen Blackwell GB200 NVL72 for example could consume well over 100kW per rack. When tens of thousands — or even millions — of chips are stuck in a single data center, megawatts and even gigawatts of accessible power may be required. The need for power definitely isn't going away.

Andrew E. Freedman

Andrew E. Freedman is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on laptops, desktops and gaming. He also keeps up with the latest news. A lover of all things gaming and tech, his previous work has shown up in Tom's Guide, Laptop Mag, Kotaku, PCMag and Complex, among others. Follow him on Threads @FreedmanAE and Mastodon @FreedmanAE.mastodon.social.

34 Comments Comment from the forums
  • ThomasKinsley
    I just read an article today on fusion. South Korea plans to run a fusion reactor for 300 seconds at >100 million degrees by 2026. If that is where we stand, then I find it difficult to believe this will be ready as a viable energy source for the next decade, if not for the next five decades. That leaves fission energy, a.k.a. traditional nuclear energy. I'm not sure how I feel about dozens of micro-reactors. Asia is still dealing with the effects of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
    Reply
  • LolaGT
    There will not be a choice. Fortunately modern fission reactors are lightyears ahead of where they were when most of the ones we have running now were built.
    We are going to need a lot of them, not just a handful, dozens and dozens.
    The fusion guys say we are ten years away, but they have been saying that for at least five decades, it might not even happen for another five, and as far as practical usable fusion reactors on the grid, maybe twice that. I seem to recall we are three to five trillion dollars away, and no one has the political will to spend that much.
    Wind and solar are a very small fraction of the grid, and in 20 years they will still be, they won't save us.
    Fission it likely will be. Better hurry though, our needs are going to double if not triple in the next couple of decades.
    Reply
  • The Historical Fidelity
    ThomasKinsley said:
    I just read an article today on fusion. South Korea plans to run a fusion reactor for 300 seconds at >100 million degrees by 2026. If that is where we stand, then I find it difficult to believe this will be ready as a viable energy source for the next decade, if not for the next five decades. That leaves fission energy, a.k.a. traditional nuclear energy. I'm not sure how I feel about dozens of micro-reactors. Asia is still dealing with the effects of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
    Modern nuclear reactors are much safer than previous generations. Fukushima was a mix of generation 2 and 2+ boiling water reactors. Generation 2 reactors were the first generation of civilian power designs built in large number in the 60’s and 70’s. Generation 1 reactors were direct copies of the first pressurized water naval reactor designs scaled up in size and output.

    Unfortunately, reactors stopped being built in the U.S. starting around the 3 mile Island incident which was blown completely out of proportion at the time and continues to be dramatized by people who know nothing about the incident (aka Netflix). Chernobyl was a communist f’up at its finest. They saw nothing wrong with using a military plutonium breeding reactor design for civilian energy production. RBMK reactors are the most unsafe reactor designs ever invented, whether it be the positive void coefficient due to the decision to use graphite to moderate the neutrons (IE: the more coolant that turns into steam within the reactor vessel, the more potent the nuclear reaction becomes. This quickly runs away in a positive feedback loop), or the graphite tipped control rods (graphite moderates neutron energy allowing more effective absorption of neutrons into uranium which causes the atom to split, so the control rods actually increased the fission reaction further when the rod’s tips first lower into the reactor.).

    American reactor designs were engineered to exhibit negative void coefficient due to using water to both cool and moderate the neutrons (IE the more coolant turns to steam, the less potent the nuclear reaction becomes. This can automatically shut down the reaction in a negative feedback loop if too much steam in the reactor vessel develops.)

    Unfortunately, national protests after 3 mile and Chernobyl means that the newest reactors the USA has is generation 2. However, we continued to R&D newer designs and if we started building nuclear reactors here again, we would be building generation 4+ designs which are loaded with passive safety mechanisms and failsafes. (For example, the LiFThR is a completely liquid design where molten lithium fluoride salt is both the coolant and the carrier fluid of diffuse uranium fluoride salt. Only when the molten uranium fluoride salt is traveling through the graphite core are neutrons moderated to allow fission. The LiFThR design also has a failsafe where if the power to operate active safety equipment is lost, the freezer unit at the bottom of the molten salt loop can no longer keep the salt plug frozen, is quickly melted by the residual heat of fission, and opens allowing the entire salt coolant and uranium salt to drain out of the reactor into a tank purposefully designed to be able to passively cool the reaction mixture from decay heat indefinitely.
    Reply
  • Notton
    ThomasKinsley said:
    Asia is still dealing with the effects of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
    Did you mean Japan (Singular)? No other country is close enough to feel the effects. And that is accounting for the heavy water they have to purge once in a while.

    Fukushima was extremely poorly managed. They kept hoarding the spent fuel rods, when they weren't supposed to. The tsunami that flooded the electronic safeties was also a once in a 1000 years type of disaster.

    Micro/Portable fission reactors are also newer technology, but they are feasible. The entire assembly fits on a few flatbed semi-truck trailers, so they are easy to deploy almost anywhere.
    The main problem with them is security and public perception. There are always going to be a bunch of NIMBYs.

    LolaGT said:
    Wind and solar are a very small fraction of the grid, and in 20 years they will still be, they won't save us.
    But the good thing about wind and solar are that they don't take 20yrs to build, unlike a full scale fission reactor.
    Solar is now cheaper than Coal to build and operate.
    Wind turbines can now be fully recycled, thanks to a new invention that can break down resin used in the glass fiber blades.

    One big ticket item missing entirely is the Thorium fission reactor, AKA Breeder reactor. Thorium is a better material to use if you want a completely clean nuclear reaction with no waste that needs special containers to dispose of.
    Reply
  • The Historical Fidelity
    Notton said:
    Did you mean Japan (Singular)? No other country is close enough to feel the effects. And that is accounting for the heavy water they have to purge once in a while.

    Fukushima was extremely poorly managed. They kept hoarding the spent fuel rods, when they weren't supposed to. The tsunami that flooded the electronic safeties was also a once in a 1000 years type of disaster.

    Micro/Portable fission reactors are also newer technology, but they are feasible. The entire assembly fits on a few flatbed semi-truck trailers, so they are easy to deploy almost anywhere.
    The main problem with them is security and public perception. There are always going to be a bunch of NIMBYs.


    But the good thing about wind and solar are that they don't take 20yrs to build, unlike a full scale fission reactor.
    Solar is now cheaper than Coal to build and operate.
    Wind turbines can now be fully recycled, thanks to a new invention that can break down resin used in the glass fiber blades.

    One big ticket item missing entirely is the Thorium fission reactor, AKA Breeder reactor. Thorium is a better material to use if you want a completely clean nuclear reaction with no waste that needs special containers to dispose of.
    See my post on the Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor above your comment. Really neat design!
    Reply
  • Eximo
    Here in Indiana they actually passed a bill allowing old power plants to be retrofitted with micro nuclear reactors. IE replacing Coal/Oil/Natural Gas heat sources with a nuclear one, more or less recycling the turbines and generators.

    Rather progressive for a formerly no-nuke state. I don't think anyone has actually taken up the task to do one, but it is currently allowable.

    Been a long time since anyone has actually built a molten salt reactor, and they didn't work super well when they were tested by the UK and US.

    They have better tools now, though. Computers and the ability to simulate every practical aspect before actually trying to build one. I suspect China will probably beat everyone to it, they have built up an enormous stockpile of Thorium from their rare earth metal mining.
    Reply
  • vanadiel007
    I think it comes down to what is a higher risk for humanity? Climate change, or nuclear disaster?

    I am thinking climate change is the lesser evil.

    The idea of fusion is great. However, how do you prevent a reactor that reaches 100 million C from melting the containment and everything it touches?
    It works for the sun because it's located in space and the fusion reaction is self sustaining without the temperature being an issue.

    Here on earth that is a different issue though, as it will instantly vaporize anything around it.
    I don't even know how they managed to keep it at 100 million C for 48 seconds. That's pretty impressive.
    Reply
  • Eximo
    Magnetic confinement is the most popular method. Couple of different ideas out there though.

    But even the best results so far are from NIF but they are just doing quick pulses with laser induction. More testing out the physics.

    I don't recall any news about a Tokamak getting close to positive power ratio. That is what ITER is supposed to do, and even it isn't a production reactor and is a decade away from even being turned on. Other issues with that design too that will require a lot of extra work to solve. Fuel and material supply simply don't exist for more than a handful of them. Beryllium being one and Tritium production at other reactors being another.

    Helios has the better idea for solving the fueling problems with a two stage reactor setup one that operates at a deficit to produce fuel for the more efficient main reactor. They use more like a magnetic piston design of pulsed plasma fusion with direct energy capture (That second part they always seem a little non-specific on, mostly theoretical I think, or way less efficient then they would like) They are still scaling up prototypes, so they are ways off as well.
    Reply
  • Leptir
    Fusion is a pipe dream, ain’t gonna happen anytime soon. So, forget about it. As for fission reactors, I’m all for it under two conditions:

    1. Have operators buy insurance for any potential accident instead of relying on the government to clean up the mess.

    2. Have operators pay upfront for the safe storage of the radioactive waste for the next hundreds of thousands of years instead of relying on the government.

    Because, as it stands now, nuclear energy is a giant scam – they profit now, but governments (the people) will pay for it into the very far future. And a scam for what, to replace jobs with Artificial Stupidity? But giant scams that redistribute wealth from the people to the rich is what modern-day capitalism is all about; this braindead idea doesn't surprise me at all.
    Reply
  • Eximo
    I think people tend to forget how well managed commercial radioactive waste is handled today. Most of the terrible disasters happened because the government itself (and globally) had no oversight in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. It was new, they were all rushing to create enrichment programs and dumping waste was considered normal practice by all sorts of industries.

    Most reactors today store the waste on site until it has cooled down enough for handling. It is then processed at facilities where various useful isotopes are chemically separated, then the actual scrap/waste is melted down into a glass substrate and put in a containment vessel. Generally safer to be around than background radiation.
    Reply