In my previous article, I described how the growth of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency means that data centers need access to ever-increasing amounts of reliable energy to power them. A quick look at the electricity generation capacity of North America, much of Europe, and Asia leads to a simple conclusion: more generation capacity—and cleaner generation capacity at that—is needed.
Currently, 3.5 percent of global CO2 emissions are attributable to data center power consumption. Data centers require a constant supply of electricity that solar and wind power simply cannot guarantee. Stable 24/7 capacity can only be provided by fossil fuels, hydropower, geothermal or nuclear power. Burning more fossil fuels to generate electricity is not an option. Of the remaining “green” options, geothermal and hydropower are only viable in a few select geographic regions. This leaves us with nuclear power as the only real option to meet the lion’s share of the expected massive growth of data centers around the world, not to mention the general increase in global energy demand.
Politically, nuclear power is a sensitive issue in the West. Many voters’ perceptions of nuclear power are shaped by the frightening images of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Nevertheless, Western countries continue to push forward new climate initiatives that require increased electricity generation capacity, be it a commitment to electromobility or a phase-out of the use of fossil fuels for heating.
Conspicuously absent from these initiatives are realistic plans to meet the country’s electricity generation needs. Most experts agree that nuclear power must be part of a green solution. Even more worrying, Western adversaries are building nuclear power plants at a rapid pace to secure their energy future. Yet in the West, our grid is overloaded and even traditionally secure generation capacity is faltering. For example, climate change is preventing Canada’s cherished hydroelectric industry from producing enough electricity, forcing Canada to import power from the United States for the first time in a decade. This is not an ideal situation for a country that has long sold its cheap surplus electricity, and it also raises questions about the ability of non-nuclear green sources to produce the energy needed.
The West is slowly waking up to this reality. At the COP 28 summit, world leaders identified nuclear power as the only viable option to meet their carbon reduction targets. This culminated in an agreement by 25 countries, including the US, to triple their nuclear capacity by 2050. Development efforts by GE and Hitachi are leading to safer and cheaper reactors, and plans to build them in the West are slowly gaining momentum, although few boots and shovels have touched ground so far. Perhaps this is a symptom of the general bureaucracy that plagues major infrastructure projects, but more likely it is a sign that nuclear power still lacks the general societal acceptance for large-scale expansion.
Problems with the uranium price and supply threaten to undermine these efforts and further deter investors from nuclear reactor construction projects and their prohibitively long payback periods. But these problems have had the benefit of helping young domestic producers in the U.S. gain market share. Congress has taken further steps to secure domestic production with the passage of HR. 1042. Uranium imports from Russia, a major producer of enriched uranium for power plants, have been banned. These steps help secure the U.S.’s future energy security in the same way that our oil and gas production currently does.
Since public acceptance is the greatest obstacle to the use of nuclear energy on the scale required to meet energy needs, education and communication must be the top priority for our politicians. Much of the population understands nothing about nuclear fission or radiation, viewing it as some kind of invisible, dangerous alchemy. Therefore, nuclear waste disposal is extremely troubling for a population that is afraid of nuclear waste due to misconceptions created by media portrayals of radiation and nuclear disasters. With a more informed understanding of the risks and benefits of nuclear energy, I believe public opinion would be largely in favor of nuclear energy.
Clean, safe and reliable nuclear energy is not only necessary but also entirely achievable if we focus on education and public investment in the technology.
Adrian Kranz is President of Paratrade Corporation and a contributing author for the Newport Global Summit.
Image: Wlad74 / Shutterstock.com.
