In a desperate race for energy, Silicon Valley is resurrecting the nuclear industry. But rushed projects and relaxed regulations are creating a perfect storm for a disaster that could make Chernobyl look small, finds Satyen K. Bordoloi
It isn’t just the old; the young are equally ignorant about the tech they use. A few months ago, a Gen Z individual who couldn’t peel his eyes off his phone explained cloud computing: “The data rests in some stratospheric satellite; perhaps Starlink?”
Here’s the spoiler: your data, everything from your Instagram feed to the anytime, anywhere email, is stored and retrieved from actual hard disks in humongous data centres, connected by millions of miles of cable that travel thousands of miles across dozens of water bodies and mountains, to reach your phone. And all of this: storage, retrieval and travel of data across continents, requires electricity.
Like the endless human farms in Matrix with thousands upon thousands of human pods, server farms on humongous data centres are growing in the world that enable everything from cloud computing to artificial intelligence, from streaming services to financial transactions. Every step consumes energy, needing electricity that is reliable and continuous. 30 years ago, none of these existed. Since then, gadgets with screens and data centres have exploded, but electricity generation has not kept pace.
Our response to this crisis? Retrieval of a technology that had largely been done and dusted: nuclear power. Yet, as nations and corporations rush to embrace nuclear energy to fuel their digital infrastructure, we must carefully balance this enthusiasm with sober recognition of nuclear power’s inherent risks.
The 1986 Chernobyl disaster created an initial exclusion zone of 2,634 square kilometres, i.e. 1,017 square miles, an area larger than over 30 nations of the world. The total radioactive contamination area is even larger, spanning over 150,000 square kilometres (57,915 square miles) across Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. There are over 120 countries smaller than this contaminated zone.
The Data Centre Explosion
The United States is the epicentre of the world’s data centre industry, with 5,426 facilities and growing, more than any other nation. This is nearly half the world’s data centres, with those like Amazon Web Services, Google, and Microsoft operating massive hyperscale facilities consuming as much power as medium-sized cities. The global data centre capital expenditure reached $430 billion in 2024, with projections indicating the market to grow to $1.1 trillion by 2029, i.e., an annual growth rate of 18% to 21%.
In the US, Northern Virginia is known as the “Data Centre Alley,” boasting the highest concentration of data centres in the world. To feed this, the state has over 5,900 MW of operational capacity, with 1,800+ MW under construction, and 15,000+ MW planned. The sunbelt cities of Phoenix and Dallas-Fort Worth are emerging as major hubs due to available land, reliable power infrastructure and favourable business climate. Chicago is another.
US data centres are currently consuming 3-5% of US electricity, projected to reach about 8% by 2030, with AI-specific facilities requiring higher power density and cooling infrastructure. With an AI query requiring up to ten times more electricity than a Google search, what else do you expect?
And it’s not just the US anymore. China had 449 large-scale data centres by the end of 2023, the highest in Asia-Pacific, consuming about 200 TWh or 2-3% of national demand. But remember that this was before China’s rise as the second AI superpower of the world. In 2025 itself, starting with DeepSeek, many Chinese models have outsmarted American ones, so electricity use in China would naturally have risen as data centres increase.
As India goes atmanirbhar in the data centre space, which we must for geopolitical and economic reasons, we’ll soon be going the same way.
Nuclear Power To The Rescue
Nuclear power is enticing as a solution to data centres’ massive power requirements. Unlike renewables like solar and wind, it provides a reliable baseload electricity that operates continuously regardless of weather and has zero carbon emissions during operations that align with tech companies’ climate commitments.
Naturally, tech companies have been going nuclear. Microsoft, in September 2024, got into an agreement to reopen the ill-fated Three Mile Island nuclear power plant – the site of the US’s worst nuclear disaster – and buy 100% of its electricity for 20 years to support its AI data centres. It has also partnered with Helion Energy, a fusion startup, to begin buying electricity from its first fusion power plant by 2028.
Meta signed a 20-year deal in June 2025 to purchase nuclear power from Constellation Energy for its AI data centres. This deal is to extend the life of Constellation’s Clinton nuclear plant in Illinois, preventing its closure. Amazon has signed support agreements for the construction of SMRs, i.e. small modular reactors, in the Pacific Northwest operated by Energy Northwest. While Google has signed what they called “New nuclear clean energy agreement with Kairos Power” last year, and in May this year, they said they’re providing early-stage capital for Elementl Power to prepare three potential sites in the USA for advanced nuclear power projects.
SMRs, i.e., compact nuclear designs typically generating 300 megawatts or less, have been the rage because they are supposed to incorporate passive safety features that rely on natural physical principles rather than active intervention, require less money to construct, have flexible siting, and are scalable.
Despite this, the actual implementation of SMR technology has faced significant challenges. One SMR project is currently under construction in Linglong One in Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant in China. Russia is deploying a floating SMR, Canada is making one at Darlington and the UK, South Korea, and France are backing it as well. In the US, just one company – TerraPower, founded by Bill Gates – has applied for a permit to build a power reactor at 345 megawatts (technically exceeding the definition of an SMR).
Despite these, SMRs have their own problems. First is the cost of electricity production. SMRs suffer from the loss of economies of scale that usually benefit nuclear power plants and cost overruns, since it’s a new technology.
Safety and Security Implications
Proponents call SMRs inherently safer than traditional nuclear plants due to their smaller size and passive safety features. However, safety experts raise serious concerns about regulatory compromises where agencies have exempted SMRs from many safety requirements mandatory for traditional plants. Allowing SMRs to operate with reduced armed security also makes them vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Most importantly, let’s not forget that SMRs are based on yet unproven designs. With the reliance on novel cooling systems, they introduce newer failure modes. And what about the management of radioactive waste? Multiple sites not only mean more targets for physical sabotage and cyberattacks, but also complicate centralised disposal strategies. Pack that with plans to deploy them near population centres or industrial zones, and we have a powder keg ready. As always, the real-world risks of such technology far outweigh the theoretical ones.
Chernobyl Effect or Why Regulation and Monitoring Matter
The Chernobyl disaster of April 26, 1986, is the most devastating nuclear accident in history. It released massive radiation into the atmosphere. The design lacked a containment structure that greatly aggravated consequences, including dozens of deaths during the explosion and clean-up, and hundreds of documented cases of cancer and psychological problems later. It also necessitated a large exclusion zone due to the release of radioactive elements like plutonium, iodine, strontium and caesium over a wide area.
The Chernobyl disaster proves that when it comes to anything nuclear, strong regulatory oversight is crucial. That also applies to the current nuclear renaissance. Design certification requires strict review, operator training must be stringent, and the facility must have robust emergency preparations with international cooperation and independent regulation in place. Chernobyl shows that regulatory failure could be catastrophic in every direction.
The data centre boom is unlikely to stop anytime soon. With it will rise the need for power, and riding its coattails will be nuclear power. But we neglect the economic, safety and environmental risks of the new nuclear power at our own risk. The world and the nuclear industry barely survived Chernobyl. It might not the next one.
In case you missed:
- Nuclear Power: Tech Giants’ Desperate Gamble for AI
- The Growing Push for Transparency in AI Energy Consumption
- A Manhattan Project for AI? Here’s Why That’s Missing the Point
- AI’s Looming Catastrophe: Why Even Its Creators Can’t Control What They’re Building
- Would an Electric Plane Have Reduced the Air India Crash Death Toll?
- Project Stargate: Dubious Origins in the 1970s to AI Goldrush in 2025
- A Data Centre on the Moon – From Sci-Fi to Necessity
- Digital Siachen: Why India’s War With Pakistan Could Begin on Your Smartphone
- You’ll Never Guess What’s Inside NVIDIA’s Latest AI Breakthrough
- Alchemists’ Treasure: How to Make Gold in a Particle Accelerator (and Why You Can’t Sell It, Yet)
