Constellation Energy, Nuclear Stocks Jump on 20-Year Meta Deal to Power AI
Constellation Energy shares are surging in early trading Tuesday after the company said it had struck a 20-year deal to sell nuclear power to Meta Platforms, in the latest tech firm-to-nuclear tie-up aimed at powering data centers.
Meta will buy the power generation of a Constellation nuclear plant in Clinton, Ill., to power its artificial intelligence ambitions.
Nuclear power stocks NuScale Power, NuScale, and Oklo are jumping on the back of the Meta deal announced Tuesday.Constellation Energy (CEG) shares are surging in early trading Tuesday after the company said it had struck a 20-year deal to sell nuclear power to Meta Platforms (META), in the latest tech firm-to-nuclear collaboration aimed at powering data centers.
Meta will buy the power generation of a Constellation nuclear plant in Clinton, Ill., to power its artificial intelligence (AI) ambitions. The financial terms of the deal weren't disclosed. Starting in June 2027, "the agreement supports the relicensing and continued operations of Constellation's high-performing Clinton nuclear facility for another two decades after the state's ratepayer funded zero emission credit (ZEC) program expires," Constellation said.
"Securing clean, reliable energy is necessary to continue advancing our AI ambitions," Urvi Parekh, head of global energy at Meta, said of the deal.
Tuesday's deal between Constellation and Meta is giving nuclear stocks a fresh lift as the Instagram and Facebook owner joins tech rivals from Alphabet's (GOOGL) Google to Microsoft (MSFT) and Amazon's (AMZN) Amazon Web Services in pouring millions of dollars to boost their nuclear power access for AI. This deal builds on earlier efforts by Constellation, which said last year it would be restarting Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear plant to provide electricity for Microsoft's data centers in a 20-year supply deal.
More recently, executive orders signed by President Donald Trump last month to accelerate the approval of new reactors and strengthen fuel supply chains have also buoyed nuclear power stocks. Shares in Constellation, which are jumping 10% in early trading, have gained 40% so far this year entering Tuesday. NuScale Power (SMR), Oklo (OKLO), Vistra (VST) and Centrus Energy (LEU) are all up at least 3% in early trading Tuesday.
Read the original article on Investopedia
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
4 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
Hypebeast
6 minutes ago
- Hypebeast
Capcom's New ‘Pragmata' Trailer Showcases Unique Dual-Character Gameplay
Summary Capcomhas officially unveiled a new trailer forPragmataduringPlayStation'sState of Play, offering a fresh look at the long-awaited sci-fi action-adventure game. Originally announced in2020, the game has faced multiple delays, but the latest trailer confirms its 2026 release window. Set in a futuristic lunar research station,Pragmatafollows spacefarer Hugh and android Diana, who must navigate a hostile AI-controlled environment to return to Earth. The trailer showcases stunning visuals, blending haunting lunar landscapes with dynamic action sequences, reinforcing the game's mysterious and immersive atmosphere. One of the standout features revealed in the trailer isPragmata's distinctive dual-character gameplay. Players control both Hugh and Diana simultaneously, with Hugh often carrying Diana through much of the action. Each character possesses unique abilities, requiring players to strategically switch between them to overcome obstacles. The game introduces a novel hacking-based combat system, allowing Diana to manipulate enemy systems and disrupt their functions. Concurrently, Hugh engages in direct combat and leverages his skills for environmental navigation, creating a synergistic gameplay loop that emphasizes both action and strategic planning. The trailer teases tense encounters with rogue machines, emphasizing the blend of action and strategy inPragmata's gameplay. The cinematic sequences suggest a story-driven experience, where players will uncover the secrets of the lunar station and its enigmatic AI overlord. With its striking visuals, innovative mechanics and compelling premise,Pragmatais shaping up to be a standout sci-fi adventure when it launches in 2026 for PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X|S and PC.
Business Insider
6 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Google's AI CEO explains why he's not interested in taking LSD in his quest to understand 'the nature of reality'
Demis Hassabis prefers gaming over acid trips. The Google DeepMind CEO said he's never taken LSD and doesn't want to. In a recent interview with Wired's Steven Levy, the AI boss was asked about his pursuit of understanding the "nature of reality," as his X bio states. More specifically, Hassabis was asked if acid had ever helped him get a glimpse of the nature of reality. The short answer is no. "I didn't do it like that," Hassabis said. "I just did it through my gaming and reading a hell of a lot when I was a kid, both science fiction and science." Hassabis set out as a child to understand the universe better, and the quest is ongoing. He's hoping AI and, eventually, artificial general intelligence will help reach his goal. While some tech leaders have talked about using psychedelics, Hassabis said he's "too worried about the effects on the brain." "I've sort of finely tuned my mind to work in this way," he said. "I need it for where I'm going." Google DeepMind is the research lab behind the company's AI projects, including chatbot Gemini. Hassabis is leading Google's charge toward the AI race's holy grail — AGI. Google DeepMind didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. Over the years, Silicon Valley has embraced the use of psychedelics, such as microdosing to improve productivity or going on ayahuasca retreats. Some investors have banked on their popularity, backing psychedelic startups that are seeking to turn the drugs into medical treatments or expand the industry in other ways. However, that's not a green light to take acid or magic mushrooms on the clock. In 2021, CEO Justin Zhu, cofounder and CEO of a startup called Iterable, said he was fired for microdosing LSD before a meeting. He hoped it would improve his focus, he said. Some of Hassabis's tech peers have been open about using LSD as established bosses or as college students. Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, for example, took acid for the first time as a teenager, according to his memoir, " Source Code: My Beginnings." For Gates, dropping acid was exhilarating at first and a "cosmic" experience when he did it again. However, he ended up thinking his brain could delete his memories like a computer. "That would be one of the last times I would do LSD," Gates said. It didn't have that effect on Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, who told his biographer, Walter Isaacson, that it was "a profound experience, one of the most important things in my life." OpenAI's Sam Altman has also spoken positively about his experience with psychedelics. Although he didn't specify exactly what drug he took, he said it changed him from a "very anxious, unhappy person" to "calm." "If you had told me that, like, one weekend-long retreat in Mexico was going to significantly change that, I would have said absolutely not," Altman said. "And it really did." For Hassabis, he's seeking other ways to find answers to life's deepest questions. "We don't know what the nature of time is, or consciousness and reality," he told Wired. "I don't understand why people don't think about them more. I mean, this is staring us in the face."
