Microsoft’s billion-dollar plan to reopen Three Mile Island for AI data centers



Constellation Energy has agreed to restart a reactor on Three Mile Island and will supply the vast majority of the power to Microsoft to support its data centers.

Three Mile Island in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, is the site of the partial nuclear meltdown that happened in 1979. However, the energy company will reopen the Unit 1 reactor, which did not melt down but rather closed in 2019.

CNBC reported that Constellation will invest $1.6 billion in restarting the plant through 2028, and it is expected to remain open until 2054. The plant will be called the Crane Clean Energy Center after the company's deceased CEO, Chris Crane.

Microsoft will purchase energy from the plant in a 20-year deal in order to power its artificial intelligence and data centers with what is being described as carbon-free power. This will occur despite criticisms from environmental activists who have shunned nuclear energy due to its waste.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates even has a green energy company called Breakthrough Energy; however, green energy would not have the capacity required for Microsoft's data centers.

'The decision here is the most powerful symbol of the rebirth of nuclear power as a clean and reliable energy resource.'

Energy reporter Mark Nelson claimed in a post on X that Microsoft will pay approximately $800 million per year across the 20-year deal, for a total of $16 billion spent on energy.

According to the Tokenist, the agreement also states that Constellation will provide Microsoft with about 835 megawatts of power, the largest purchase Microsoft has ever made for energy. This represents almost all of the Unit 1 reactor's capacity, which Constellation said had a ceiling of 837 megawatts before it was shut down.

While this is enough power to feed more than 800,000 homes, Microsoft will essentially have its own nuclear plant to energize its data centers.

"The decision here is the most powerful symbol of the rebirth of nuclear power as a clean and reliable energy resource," said Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez. "In this rebirth, we see the most powerful sign that America will turn to the enduring promise of nuclear energy, an old and loyal ally that is renewed and ready to light the way forward."

CNN reported that the reactor's reopening will create about 3,400 jobs and add another $16 billion to the Pennsylvania economy, which pleased local politicians.

“This will transform the local economy and presents a rare opportunity to power our economy with reliable clean energy that we can count on," said state Rep. Tom Mehaffie (R); the plant is in his district. "This is a rare and valuable opportunity to invest in clean, carbon-free and affordable power — on the heels of the hottest year in Earth’s history."

Constellation's stock jumped about 15% or about $30 per share after the news broke.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Nuclear energy is clean and safe, so why do climate doomsayers ignore it?



For the longest time, I didn’t know what I thought when someone mentioned nuclear energy.

It seemed relegated to the realm of sci-fi or "The Simpsons." I knew what Chernobyl was, and I remember exactly where I was when I heard about the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster (a dorm room in Chinatown, pulling an all-nighter). But still, I didn’t know what to make of it.

I spent several years in the trenches worrying about climate change, and I still don’t think I thought about nuclear very much. I thought we’d sooner see carbon capture than any meaningful changes to our energy infrastructure. Plus, wasn’t nuclear energy really dangerous, anyway? Maybe that’s what I thought about it. Not a pipe dream exactly; it was just dangerous.

I think a lot of people get their idea of nuclear waste from "The Simpsons," but as my friend Madi Hilly says, the only thing "The Simpsons" got right about nuclear is that a man without a college degree can make enough to buy a home and support his family while working at a nuclear power plant.

Then, around 2019, I started noticing nuclear discourse appearing in my digital life. A tweet here, a TikTok there. Suddenly, it started taking shape in my mind. It was no longer some ill-defined threat. Nuclear energy became something more tangible.

But for people like me, being able to understand nuclear power doesn’t just happen. It’s thanks to people like Emmet Penney, one of the most interesting and most accessible energy writers out there. Something of a digital renaissance man, he’s an accomplished essayist, the mind behind the newsletter Grid Brief, a podcast host times two at "Nuclear Barbarians" and "ex.haust," a contributing editor at Compact, and a recipient of a prestigious Emergent Ventures grant.

Here’s our conversation in which we discuss how he got into nuclear, whether my kids will grow extra limbs if we ever see widespread nuclear adoption, and why it feels like nuclear is entering the discourse as a perfect solution to our energy needs.

Katherine: You are a humanities guy — what’s the story on how you got into nuclear?

Emmet: I got into nuclear through Michael Shellenberger’s work and Leigh Phillips’ book "Austerity Ecology & the Collapse Porn Addicts." A few years after I got nuke-pilled, I had the wonderful opportunity to help on Michael’s book "Apocalypse Never," which turned me into a full-blown advocate. This story has a lot of twists and turns, but that’s the most direct version of how it happened. Still, it baffles me that I’m even in this space.

Katherine: Where’d the name “Nuclear Barbarians,” the title of your nuclear energy podcast, come from?

Emmet: I don’t share, as many nuclear advocates seem to, the belief that history progresses. Yet I still believe in civic virtue and the power and necessity of big industrial projects. So I wanted to come up with a brand idea that had an atavistic, John Milius tinge to it. I also wanted to head off the “nukebro” insult that renewaphiles tend to hurl around. If I’m already posting memes with Arnold as Conan and calling myself the Nuclear Barbarian, what else is there to say? I’ve already said it for you. The other reason I picked it is because if you’re a nuclear advocate, you’re more or less beyond the moat of the energy mainstream’s castle. So I wanted to feature that rather than fix it.

Katherine: Please excuse the expression, but can you red-pill me on nuclear energy? I have internalized so much anti-nuclear propaganda.

Emmet: Depends on what your concerns are. Many people are worried about safety issues, but nuclear power is among the safest energy sources. It also has the lowest land footprint. If you’re really worried about climate and you think it’s a good idea to electrify everything so as to reduce emissions, then you’ll want to look at the two canonical examples of decarbonizing the electricity sector: Ontario and France. Both were accomplished with nuclear. No one’s done it with renewables. If you want to know how nuclear got such a bad name (and how it became so expensive to build in America), you can check out this piece I wrote for American Affairs. It was my attempt to write the article I wish someone could have handed me when I first started getting into all this five years ago.

Katherine: What about nuclear waste? Will my kids grow extra limbs if I live near a reactor?

Emmet: The waste is the best part. Renewables end up clogging landfills and leaching toxic chemicals into the ground. Coal stores a lot of its waste in the air we breathe. On the other hand, nuclear has highly monitored waste stored in highly durable casks. Check out this photo of my friend Paris hanging out with the waste at the Paolo Verde plant in Arizona.

I think a lot of people get their idea of nuclear waste from "The Simpsons," but as my friend Madi Hilly says, the only thing "The Simpsons" got right about nuclear is that a man without a college degree can make enough to buy a home and support his family while working at a nuclear power plant.

Katherine: What should freak me out the most about energy these days?

Emmet: The general hostility to energy abundance that Western elites exhibit. People think they can do whatever they want with fossil fuels or nuclear and nothing bad will happen. Or they don’t care that bad things happen because it doesn’t affect them as much. But get a load of Germany right now – they closed their nuclear plants, made themselves dependent on natural gas from Russia, and now they’re firing up their coal plants to keep the lights on. So much for the all-renewables dream of their Energiewende. What we’re experiencing right now is the trailer for the feature-length suffering that’s about to play out over the next few years. Few in charge seem to have really internalized this.

Katherine: You wrote about renewable energy credit scams in your newsletter, Grid Brief. It’s not the first time I’ve heard chatter about this. What’s the story there?

Leif Skoogfors/Getty

Emmet: Renewable energy credits are a way to say you run on clean energy from renewables without actually doing it. They’re like the indulgences for sins the Catholic Church put on the market way back when. The basic idea is that you offset your “sin” of consuming fossil fuels by purchasing some credits that go towards renewable energy projects. Does this actually happen? It’s a Barnum and Bailey world out there, so not really. It’s more like an accounting trick.

They’re useful because if you’re, say, running a huge data storage facility, you’re power-hungry and most likely getting all of your juice from fossil fuel generators because fossil fuels are energy-dense, reliable, and dispatchable (you can call on them when you need them). But maybe you’re in a state that has certain standards around how much clean energy you have to use. Well, you can buy some credits and say, “Hey, look! I bought all these credits that cancel out all my emissions! I’m 100% clean now.” Unless you’re parked next to a major hydro dam or a nuclear plant, that’s probably a load of bull. And part of that’s just the nature of electricity. Once electricity is created, you can’t analyze it and go, “Ah, yes! This is coal electricity.” It’s just watts. There’s no such thing as an electricity sommelier.

Anyway, RECs are a big scam.

Katherine: It’s weird that energy doesn’t get a lot of airtime in the hot-take economy given how it … well, undergirds everything. But part of me wonders if it’s because it’s just complicated to write about and there’s a barrier to entry to understand what you’re talking about. Is that it? Or do you think there are other reasons?

Emmet: I’d say the barrier to entry for energy discourse is inherently higher than other spheres. Anyone can watch some new Netflix show and fire off a spicy take on it — and good for them. With energy, you have to put some work in over time. Lots of homework. I’m absolutely a beginner. Part of the reason I got into all this is because there’s something new to learn every single day.

It’s also because — and this is especially true when it comes to electricity markets — there are loads of specialized language. If some dude with a wind turbine in his profile pic tweets out “MOPRs are for utilities cucks,” who the f**k is going to like or RT that? No one knows what he’s talking about outside a very small circle. Hot-take economies run on the structure of jokes, and jokes are structured like a 2010 American Apparel ad. It’s about what information is missing, not what information’s there.

All that being said, there are still flame wars and hot-take economies that play out within the energy sphere. It’s like any other online discourse, really. Just with more white papers and graphs.

Katherine: Who’s one person everyone should be reading on any topic? Or listening to, for that matter?

Emmet: There are so many people I could list that it’s overwhelming me. So I’ll instead give some advice that I wish someone had given me when I started exploring various domains for myself: Go to the library and find out-of-print books on the topic you’re interested in. Or buy them online if you’re so inclined. Understand that what you’re curious about has probably been litigated over and over again — tear through works cited and bibliographies and figure out the genealogy of the debate to the best of your ability. Try to wade into the flow of time.

And reread Plato’s "Republic" a few times a decade.

France poised to drop renewable targets and fully embrace nuclear energy to ensure 'energy sovereignty'



France is looking to lean more heavily on nuclear power, having apparently realized that a civilized and productive nation cannot reliably run off so-called renewable energy.

The French government will consider legislation in early February that would eliminate renewable power objectives within France's energy code, including targets for reducing energy consumption by way of renovating buildings. France24 indicated that the legislation sets no explicit targets for building renewable capacity.

Instead of mucking around with objectives for renewables, the legislation would have France embrace "the sustainable choice of using nuclear energy as a competitive and carbon-free" source of power.

To this end, the proposed French legislation — touted as a means to ensure "energy sovereignty" — would push for the construction of between six and 14 new nuclear reactors.

Energy Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher told the weekly newspaper La Tribune Dimanche that the construction of these reactors is necessary to reduce the country's reliance on fossils fuels to 40% from 60% by 2035, reported Reuters.

The U.S. Department of Energy admitted in 2021 that nuclear energy was the most reliable energy source, at least on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. Each nuclear reactor typically generates the same amount of power as 431 utility-scale wind turbines or 3.1 million solar panels.

In addition to being less productive than nuclear and fossil fuels, renewables are unreliable.

A 2021 study published in the journal Nature Communications indicated, "If future net-zero emissions energy systems rely heavily on solar and wind resources, spatial and temporal mismatches between resource availability and electricity demand may challenge system reliability."

The researchers indicated that "the most reliable renewable electricity systems are wind-heavy and satisfy countries' electricity demand in 72-91% of hours ... Yet even in systems which meet >90% of demand, hundreds of hours of unmet demand may occur annually."

Despite the efficacy of nuclear, the French legislation has been met with some criticism.

Arnaud Gosse, a lawyer with the French energy-focused firm Gosse Avocats, suggested in a blog post that the bill, which goes before the French cabinet next month, "weakens France's climate objectives, starting with the objective of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. The objective would no longer be to 'reduce' but to tend towards a reduction in 'our greenhouse gas emissions.'"

Gosse suggested further to France24 that the bill "a terrible step back."

Jules Nyssen, the president of France's Renewable Energies Union, was unsurprisingly antagonistic of the bill, claiming he was "stunned" to learn it removes renewable targets.

Anne Bringault, an activist at Climate Action Network — an alarmist group that seeks "transformational change in our societies and economies" — told France24, "this is an extremely significant step backwards, and totally inconsistent with European objectives."

RFI reported that France remains among the lowest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union largely thanks to the 57 nuclear reactors it has built since the 1973 oil crisis.

Reuters indicated that an increase in French exports of nuclear power to other European nations would likely reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and thereby spare climate alarmists the guilt often associated with winter warmth.

Already this year, France has reportedly overseen a three-year high in nuclear generation. From Jan. 2-9, France was an average daily net exporter of over 12.2 gigawatts of power, with roughly 3 gigawatts going to Germany and another six headed to Switzerland, the U.K., and Italy.

France is not the only European nation waking up to the unreliability of renewable electricity. The Swedish parliament announced last year that in the interest of a "stable energy system," it would have to abandon its goal of "100 per cent renewable electricity production by 2040."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Funding Russia’s Uranium Racket’: Jesse Watters Hammers Biden Admin For Halting Uranium Mining

'Russia already supplies 14% of our uranium'

Atom Bomb Father J. Robert Oppenheimer: ‘I Am Become Death, The Destroyer Of Worlds’

Robert Oppenheimer’s life holds major questions about the use of power that continue to affect the world today.