logo
What Happens When Big Tech Goes Nuclear?

What Happens When Big Tech Goes Nuclear?

Silicon Valley firms are advocating for the U.S. to embark on a nuclear energy renaissance. They have received support from President Donald Trump, who recently signed four executive orders which seek to quadruple domestic production of electricity from nuclear power within the next 25 years.
The massive energy needs of the data centers required to run artificial intelligence (AI) operations have led Big Tech firms like Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta to buy electricity from preexisting nuclear power plants, push for reopening closed ones, and encourage the construction of new reactors. Microsoft even signed an agreement in September 2024 to restart Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania—the site of the worst civil nuclear accident in U.S. history when the reactor core of Unit 2 melted down in March 1979.
The role of private enterprise is not new in driving technological innovation in nuclear fission. The Manhattan Project itself had companies such as Dupont, Union Carbide, Bechtel, and Westinghouse heavily involved under the guidance of the federal government. After World War II, the federal government took the lead in nurturing the U.S. nuclear energy industry. It subsidized and regulated nuclear energy in an attempt to promote this new source of electricity to utility providers while also reducing the public health risks from accidents.
The Trump Administration's executive orders on nuclear energy gut regulation in the name of efficiency and cost-cuts. But if the history of nuclear energy's emergence and expansion offers us any lessons on this, it's that the federal government has been pivotal for nuclear energy's growth, reliability, and safety.
Read More: Nuclear Power Is the Only Solution
For almost a decade after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the federal government kept the scientific knowledge tied to nuclear energy and weapons as top-secret 'restricted data.' But in 1954, Congress shifted gears and passed the Atomic Energy Act. Unlike its 1946 predecessor, this Act allowed for the commercialization of nuclear knowhow. The role of government was vital in creating an atomic marketplace because it had to determine which technologies private companies could trade in, without posing risks to U.S. national security—a most important tenet during the early Cold War to prevent nuclear proliferation.
This early technological ambiguity posed security challenges. In one case, the American company Vitro International ended up selling blueprints for a plutonium reprocessing plant to India—a key piece of infrastructure useful both for generating nuclear power and for developing a nuclear weapon. The sale ended up helping advance India's nuclear weapons program, exposing the need for clear rules and laws governing the sale of nuclear information, which only the federal government could devise.
In addition to setting rules about what companies could do with nuclear information, the government offered subsidies to spur nuclear energy growth within the United States. It also encouraged U.S. companies to sell nuclear reactors abroad as part of broader goal of maintaining American technological primacy in the postwar world order.
The federal government also enacted regulation to ensure nuclear energy's safety and security. In 1957, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which limited the liability of the nuclear industry for accidents and also provided the public with mechanisms for seeking compensation when they occurred. In other words, the nuclear industry accepted regulation because the government was providing the majority of funding to build nuclear power plants. This acceptance, however, would change within a decade.
By the late 1960s, the federal government's willingness and capacity to support nuclear energy had diminished—for reasons having little to do directly with energy policy. The U.S. had to accumulated large deficits due to military escalation in Vietnam, which prompted a budget crunch. Moreover, as the public became more skeptical of political elites and the government due to anti-war sentiments against Vietnam, and later, the Watergate scandal, opposition to large state-led projects such as nuclear power grew. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was even reorganized, beginning under President Richard Nixon's administration, to curtail the power of the Commission. By the Carter years, the Commission had become the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which exists till this today, but whose regulatory powers the Trump Administration plans to drastically reduce.
As government funding for the nuclear energy industry dropped, private finance stepped into the void. But, being primarily motivated by profit, private banks did not find nuclear energy lucrative enough, especially owing to frequent cost overruns of reactor construction projects, red tape, and regulation. Thus, private funding did not match the same levels of economic support that the state had once provided. Without government subsidies, the nuclear energy industry experienced financial difficulties— years before the accident at Three Mile Island shocked the nation in 1979.
The Reagan Administration attempted to revive the industry by cutting regulations, or what it called 'Carter-era anti-growth policies,' while also boosting funding for nuclear energy by 36% in 1981. But the effort to save the industry failed. While the funding boost was quite generous in the context of an administration that was cutting spending on social service programs, it was not enough to cover the constant cost overruns of nuclear energy projects. Additionally, the general public came to mistrust and reject nuclear energy projects, further disillusioned by the Three Mile Island disaster. New operators even feared financial liability in the event of future accidents.
Read More: The U.S. Is Losing a New Nuclear Arms Race
In 1986, the severe nuclear accident in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union further increased opposition to nuclear power globally. In the U.S., the construction of new nuclear power plants halted. The only new nuclear units to be added to the grid in the 1980s were those whose construction began in the 1960s and 1970s.
The current push for nuclear energy looks very different from the original one in the 1950s. Unlike in the past when the majority of funding for nuclear energy came from the state, private investments from the Silicon Valley are now flowing to the U.S. nuclear energy sector at unprecedented levels. Nuclear energy startups have mushroomed, a large number of these funded by Big Tech. This threatens to tilt the technocratic and regulatory power away from the state. President Trump's executive orders support this tilt through a variety of measures, including reducing power of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and emphasizing advanced reactor testing outside the national laboratories that are hubs of American scientific and technological innovations resulting from the Manhattan Project.
And yet, historically, the U.S. nuclear energy industry has thrived when government provided strong guidance. When the federal government stepped back, the industry suffered immensely. China, Russia, and France have all learned this lesson too, embracing state-led and majority state funded industries.
The ethos of Big Tech to 'move fast and break things' could spur unprecedented innovation in nuclear energy, especially through the construction of small modular reactors, microreactors, and even fusion. But, just like Silicon Valley itself, which has historically flourished through the invisible hand of the state, the nuclear energy industry might also need increased guidance from the government in order to be safe, secure, and reliable.
Jayita Sarkar is Professor of Global History of Inequalities at the University of Glasgow and author of the award-winning book, Ploughshares and Swords: India's Nuclear Program in the Global Cold War (Cornell University Press, 2022). She is currently finishing her next book, Atomic Capitalism (Princeton University Press, under contract). She is a British Academy Global Innovation Fellow for 2024-25 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C.
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trainline plc's (LON:TRN) Fundamentals Look Pretty Strong: Could The Market Be Wrong About The Stock?
Trainline plc's (LON:TRN) Fundamentals Look Pretty Strong: Could The Market Be Wrong About The Stock?

Yahoo

time2 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trainline plc's (LON:TRN) Fundamentals Look Pretty Strong: Could The Market Be Wrong About The Stock?

It is hard to get excited after looking at Trainline's (LON:TRN) recent performance, when its stock has declined 3.6% over the past three months. However, a closer look at its sound financials might cause you to think again. Given that fundamentals usually drive long-term market outcomes, the company is worth looking at. Specifically, we decided to study Trainline's ROE in this article. Return on Equity or ROE is a test of how effectively a company is growing its value and managing investors' money. Put another way, it reveals the company's success at turning shareholder investments into profits. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. How To Calculate Return On Equity? The formula for return on equity is: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Trainline is: 21% = UK£58m ÷ UK£283m (Based on the trailing twelve months to February 2025). The 'return' is the income the business earned over the last year. So, this means that for every £1 of its shareholder's investments, the company generates a profit of £0.21. View our latest analysis for Trainline What Has ROE Got To Do With Earnings Growth? So far, we've learned that ROE is a measure of a company's profitability. Based on how much of its profits the company chooses to reinvest or "retain", we are then able to evaluate a company's future ability to generate profits. Assuming everything else remains unchanged, the higher the ROE and profit retention, the higher the growth rate of a company compared to companies that don't necessarily bear these characteristics. Trainline's Earnings Growth And 21% ROE To start with, Trainline's ROE looks acceptable. Especially when compared to the industry average of 8.7% the company's ROE looks pretty impressive. This probably laid the ground for Trainline's significant 71% net income growth seen over the past five years. We reckon that there could also be other factors at play here. For example, it is possible that the company's management has made some good strategic decisions, or that the company has a low payout ratio. We then compared Trainline's net income growth with the industry and we're pleased to see that the company's growth figure is higher when compared with the industry which has a growth rate of 32% in the same 5-year period. The basis for attaching value to a company is, to a great extent, tied to its earnings growth. What investors need to determine next is if the expected earnings growth, or the lack of it, is already built into the share price. By doing so, they will have an idea if the stock is headed into clear blue waters or if swampy waters await. What is TRN worth today? The intrinsic value infographic in our free research report helps visualize whether TRN is currently mispriced by the market. Is Trainline Making Efficient Use Of Its Profits? Trainline doesn't pay any regular dividends currently which essentially means that it has been reinvesting all of its profits into the business. This definitely contributes to the high earnings growth number that we discussed above. Conclusion In total, we are pretty happy with Trainline's performance. Specifically, we like that the company is reinvesting a huge chunk of its profits at a high rate of return. This of course has caused the company to see substantial growth in its earnings. With that said, the latest industry analyst forecasts reveal that the company's earnings growth is expected to slow down. To know more about the company's future earnings growth forecasts take a look at this free report on analyst forecasts for the company to find out more. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Donald Trump gloats over Late Show with Stephen Colbert axe
Donald Trump gloats over Late Show with Stephen Colbert axe

Yahoo

time2 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Donald Trump gloats over Late Show with Stephen Colbert axe

Donald Trump "absolutely loves" that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has been cancelled. The 61-year-old presenter confirmed that CBS has pulled the plug on his nightly talk show on Thursday (17.07.25), with the final episode set to air in May, and the US president has weighed in on the news, admitting he is delighted that Stephen - who has hosted the programme since 2015 - has been "fired". Trump also couldn't resist taking swipes at two other talk show hosts, Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon. He wrote on Truth Social: 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. 'His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert! "[Fox News late night host] Greg Gutfeld is better than all of them combined, including the Moron on NBC who ruined the once great Tonight Show.' Kimmel has offered support to Stephen in the wake of the cancellation. He wrote on Instagram: 'Love you Stephen. F*** you and all your Sheldons CBS.' And The Tonight Show host Fallon was "shocked" by the news. He wrote on Instagram: "I'm just as shocked as everyone. Stephen is one of the sharpest, funniest hosts to ever do it. I really thought I'd ride this out with him for years to come. I'm sad that my family and friends will need a new show to watch every night at 11:30. But honestly, he's really been a gentleman and a true friend over the years — going back to The Colbert Report, and I'm sure whatever he does next will be just as brilliant." Late Night host Seth Meyers has also expressed his support for Stephen. He said on Instagram: "For as great a comedian and host he is, Stephen Colbert is an even better person. I'm going to miss having him on TV every night but I'm excited he can no longer use the excuse that he's 'too busy to hang out' with me." Stephen announced the axing of The Late Show on Thursday. He said: "Before we start the show, I want to let you know something that I found out just last night. Next year will be our last season, the network will be ending The Late Show in May." Stephen - who replaced David Letterman at the helm in 2015 - added: "I'm not being replaced. This is all just going away. I do want to say that the folks at CBS have been great partners … And I'm grateful to the audience, you, who have joined us every night, in here, out there, and all around the world. "I am extraordinarily, deeply grateful to the 200 people who work here. We get to do this show. We get to do this show for each other every day, all day, and I've had the pleasure and the responsibility of sharing what we do every day with you in front of this camera for the last 10 years."

Donald Trump's Jan. 6 pardons cast a long shadow over justice six months later
Donald Trump's Jan. 6 pardons cast a long shadow over justice six months later

USA Today

time3 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Donald Trump's Jan. 6 pardons cast a long shadow over justice six months later

President Donald Trump has done more than pardon J6 rioters. He's also targeting the FBI investigators as he weaponized the Department of Justice. On this, the six-month anniversary of President Donald Trump's sweeping pardons for more than 1,500 people accused or convicted of invading and ransacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, let's check in on some of the people arrested for that riot and how the president's team is rewriting history to make the FBI and Department of Justice the bad guys. People Trump pardoned for Jan. 6 crimes have since been arrested for soliciting a minor for sex, for commercial burglary and for home invasion. And the FBI agents and federal prosecutors who worked on those Jan. 6 cases have been demonized by Trump as his administration ends their careers for the offense of doing their jobs. One J6er tried to use Trump's pardon to beat child porn charges Kyle Travis Colton, a California man arrested and accused in December 2023 for using a flagpole to assault a police officer at the Capitol on Jan. 6, pleaded guilty in October 2024. Trump pardoned him three and a half months later. But Colton had more trouble with the law. An FBI search when he was arrested found Colton's computer held "copious images and videos depicting graphic sexual abuse of young children." Colton's attorney argued that Trump's pardon applied to his child porn, too, because it was discovered as part of the Jan. 6 investigation. A federal judge didn't buy that, and a jury in California convicted Colton on July 15. He faces a mandatory minimum of five years in prison when sentenced on Oct. 27. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a good government nonprofit known as CREW, tracks pardoned insurrectionists accused of other crimes before or after the Jan. 6 riot. Matthew Huttle, an Indiana man sentenced to six months in prison for crimes he committed on Jan. 6, pulled a gun and struggled with a sheriff's deputy during a traffic stop six days after Trump pardoned him. The deputy shot and killed him. Edward Kelley of Tennessee was convicted in November 2024 for assaulting police officers at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Trump pardoned him before he was sentenced. But Kelley was also convicted in November 2024 on charges that he conspired to kill the FBI agents who investigated him. His lawyers had argued that Trump's pardon should also apply to the murder plot. He was sentenced to life in prison earlier this month. What's the messaging on election results going forward? Noah Bookbinder, CREW's president, told me he expects more people pardoned for Jan. 6 crimes will be re-arrested. And he worries that federal investigators and prosecutors now know they face retaliation if their work runs counter to what Trump wants. "These are people who showed their lawlessness and who feel empowered," Bookbinder said. "And so there's a very specific danger there, on the flip side of that, at the Department of Justice, that attorneys who work at the department and agents who work at the FBI feel very uncertain in their roles, uncertain that they can do their jobs without facing consequences if the president and the administration see anything that these Justice Department personnel do as adverse to their interests." The Jan. 6 insurrection was a failed bid to overturn the free and fair 2020 election, egged on by Trump, who continues to routinely lie about how American elections are run. So what happens if Trump doesn't like the results of next year's midterm elections, when control of Congress is up for grabs? "I think we have to assume, going forward, that a lot of people in this country are going to feel like they don't have to accept the results of elections if they don't like those results, particularly if those results are seen as going against Donald Trump," Bookbinder said, "and that using force to get to the election results they want is OK and is even encouraged." Republicans have made it clear they want to target law enforcement Just look at the DOJ team Trump has assembled and ask yourself if they prioritize justice or pleasing the president. Emil Bove, a senior DOJ official who privately represented Trump when he was convicted of 34 felonies in a 2024 business fraud criminal case, saw his appointment for a lifetime seat on a federal appeals court advance on a party-line vote in a Senate committee on July 17. This happened despite a letter sent to the Senate from more than 900 former DOJ employees, accusing Bove of being a "leader in the assault" on the careers of prosecutors and FBI agents who did their jobs investigating Jan. 6 to hold rioters accountable. Trump, who sparked the Jan. 6 riot, campaigned on retribution. Bove is his retribution delivery boy. The DOJ alumni noted Bove's "breathtaking act of hypocrisy," since he had previously overseen parts of the Jan. 6 investigation as an assistant U.S. Attorney in New York before pivoting to target his colleagues for the same thing. Then there's Jared Wise, a former FBI supervisory special agent from Oregon who was accused of rooting for rioters to attack police officers at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and was indicted for that in May 2023. He was standing trial on Jan. 20 when Trump was sworn in for a second term and included Wise in his sweeping pardons. The DOJ dropped his case that day. Wise got more than a reprieve from responsibility. Trump gave him a job. At the DOJ. In the so-called "Weaponization Working Group," which grew out of Trump's Jan. 20 executive order – the same day Wise got his pardon – which whined that the DOJ had "ruthlessly prosecuted more than 1,500 individuals" for crimes committed on Jan. 6. Read between the lines, and what you really see is that Trump knew Jan. 6 was a stain on our democracy and was directly his fault. So he wants to rewrite that history, to make himself the victim of the calamity he caused. And he's building a team to do just that. So the next time a MAGA crowd decides to storm a government building, beating police officers, smashing windows, stealing computers and smearing their feces on the walls, ask yourself if Team Trumpers like Wise will root for rioters while searching for ways to blame Trump's perceived enemies. Will Bove, if a full Senate vote gives him a lifetime federal judgeship, consider cases according to the strictures of the U.S. Constitution – or just focus on whatever result Trump wants? Trump has twisted and transformed the Republican Party in many ways. The GOP used to tout "law and order" as a bedrock of democracy. Justice is now a team sport, where accountability for action can be canceled with adulation for authority. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store