Part 1 of 2 Parts
     Tech companies are scrambling to find new power sources for AI’s huge energy needs. Some of them are turning to startups that are developing new nuclear technology. Google recently announced that it plans to start using power from Kairos Power’s small modular reactors (SMRs) by 2030. Amazon is investing in X-Energy, which is another nuclear startup. Microsoft hasn’t yet announced a similar investment. However, Microsoft recently agreed to purchase electricity from Helion Energy’s first fusion power plant, scheduled for deployment in 2028.
     Nuclear boosters claim that the newest nuclear tech is safer and more sustainable than traditional nuclear power plants. However, some critics argue that next generation “advanced” nuclear technology isn’t necessarily that advanced and that it’s unlikely to be ready on the timeline that Big Tech wants.
     Ed Lyman is the director of the nuclear power safety program at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists. He said, “I think it’s highly unlikely that these reactors are going to perform the way that their developers are promising.”
     X-Energy is making a small reactor filled with fuel “pebbles”, each around the size of a billiard ball. They contain thousands of tiny particles of uranium that are each surrounded by layers of carbon. This type of fuel is “tristructural isotropic” fuel (TRISO). The Department of Energy (DoE) calls it “the most robust nuclear fuel on Earth,” a claim that Lyman says is “wildly overhyped.”
     TRISO fuel continuously rotates through the core of the reactor, along with helium that absorbs the heat. The heat turns water into steam which drives a turbine to make electricity. The X-Energy claims that its design is “meltdown-proof” and says the particles “retain their integrity under all foreseeable conditions.”
     Lyman wrote a detailed report about next-gen nuclear reactors in 2021 and closely follows the industry. He argues that it’s too early to say that it’s safe. He explains that “X-Energy’s specific fuel type has not yet been tested under any circumstances.” When TRISO fuel from another manufacturer was tested in a reactor at Idaho National Laboratory, the experiment had to stop early because it was producing high levels of radioactive cesium at certain temperatures. X-Energy also claims that its fuel is so inherently safe that a containment building isn’t necessary, but Lyman disagrees. He says that the reactors could be vulnerable to air or water leaks, and that the TRISO fuel has to be made to exacting specifications that have yet to be proven. He adds that “They’re still kind of basing all their safety analyses on optimistic assumptions.”
     X-Energy says their reactors run efficiently, using more than ninety percent of the available uranium in each pebble. However, Lyman says it’s less efficient than traditional nuclear power plants and that it generates more radioactive waste. The spent fuel will be stored on site for the 60-year life of the reactor. After that the DoE will have to store it in a geological repository. So far, these repositories don’t exist, and nuclear waste from decades of older nuclear power plants is still piling up. The U.S. started to build a repository in Arizona at Yucca Mountain, but the project was canceled in 2011.
     Kairos also uses TRISO fuel, with their own type of reactor. Lyman argues that there are other problems with the Kairos reactors. He says that the coolant that the company uses is corrosive and it could be difficult to find materials for the reactor that won’t be damaged by it. Kairos responded that it has done thousands of hours of testing with “very little corrosion” under normal operating conditions. Lyman still says that it’s too early in the process to know how the reactor will actually perform. Construction began in July on the company’s demonstration reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    The full-scale TRISO reactor will also release more tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, than existing nuclear power plants. Lyman argues the tritium poses a threat to the environment. Kairos says the levels of tritium release “do not pose a significant risk to public health or the environment.” They note that some level of tritium naturally exists in groundwater. They say that they will “conduct regular monitoring and mitigation efforts to limit any tritium releases.”
Please read Part 2 next

     A new report indicates Washington state could face an energy crisis within five years as its power capacity approaches its limit. The growing demands from AI and major tech companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are causing a strain on the state’s energy resources.
     Amazon just signed a deal with Energy Northwest and X-energy, investing in four new small modular reactors (SMRs) along the Columbia River in Richland near Hanford which is the most contaminated nuclear site in the U.S. Some groups are asking why we’re risking this again?
     Leona Morgan is an indigenous organizer. During a panel hosted by the organization Columbia Riverkeeper, she said, “Nuclear kills, and nuclear is killing my people. Nuclear is what we call ‘a slow genocide.” Morgan says that the health impacts her family and other indigenous people face arise from radioactive exposure and contamination on their land.
     Morgan added, “Just because we can’t see it, it’s out of sight out of mind, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. And if you need proof of it, come visit us. See an abandoned uranium mine anywhere in the world? On Navajo, we have over 2,000.”
     The panel came just after Amazon’s SMR announcement. Riverkeeper maintains that nuclear energy is far from clean. Morgan added that “It’s the most expensive, complicated, dirtiest way to boil water.” She went on to explain that the carbon footprint of nuclear power is only counted at the power plant, not during the process to build it and the toxic waste left behind. 
     Billions of dollars in federal and local money go to fund nuclear site decommissioning and cleaning every year. Washington state just approved a record three billion dollars to spend on cleanup at the Hanford site this year.
     According to Riverkeeper, the money Amazon is investing in SMRs near Hanford could be better invested in renewables like solar, wind and hydro. Members of Riverkeeper say that nuclear power isn’t the clean energy savior that big tech makes it out to be.
     M.V. Ramana was a panelist at the Riverkeeper event. He said, “When it comes to companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon, the public has plenty of reasons to be angry at them. These companies steal your data, they do bad things, they want to pretend to be good citizens. The reason they can use investment in nuclear energy as a way to pretend they are good citizens is because the hard work of convincing the public has already been done by the nuclear lobby.”
     Ramana is the author of the book “Nuclear is not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change.” He says we should focus on energy conservation instead.
     Kelly Rae works in corporate communications with Energy Northwest. She told an interviewer that the permits for the SMRs haven’t been secured yet, although lawmakers from Jay Inslee on down are already lining up behind the project.
     Rae says that Amazon’s funding will pay for a feasibility study over the next two years, after which they are hopeful to fund the SMRs. If they’re successful, the electricity generated from the first four reactors would be available to Amazon only. Rae says that after that, other utility companies and municipalities could buy power to help Amazon fund additional reactors to provide energy for Washingtonians.
     Energy Northwest is an association of 28 utility districts, including Seattle City Light, Tacoma Public Utilities and Snohomish County PUD. Amazon didn’t say how much it intends to spend on the project, or how much, if any, will come from Energy Northwest.
     So far, there aren’t any other small modular reactors like the ones Amazon intends to invest in, operating in the U.S.