As AI fever runs high, BBC reported a US-based start-up, Digital Realty that plans to use small nuclear reactors to power their AI data center in Portland, Oregon. But why?
In an interview with BBC, Stephanie Hare, an AI commentator and technology researcher, said that powering data centers in general are very energy-intensive, leaving behind a massive carbon footprint in addition to the usage of water.
Gallons of water, for instance, functions as a coolant to counteract overheating in machines when it busy processes user requests.
Hare noted that computers there can use up to ‘half a liter’ of water to process requests from a single user at a time.
However, operating an AI data center is going to consume even more power.
“A normal data center needs 32 megawatts of power flowing into the building. For an AI data center it’s 80 megawatts,” said Chris Sharp, Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Digital Realty, to the BBC. But it’s not just Digital Realty though participating in this enterprise.
Small Modular Reactors can generate one-third the energy of a conventional nuclear power plant and are said to be cheap based on design.
In 2023, The Verge reported Microsoft potentially showing interests in using ‘small modular reactors’ (SMRs) to fuel their AI data centers. These reactors split uranium nuclei with slow-moving neutrons, very much like conventional nuclear power plants.
However, lending a nuclear reactor to commercial establishments comes with its challenges. For one, only skilled workers can be relied upon to operate properly and manage the nuclear reactor.
Whereas for another, is for the nuclear reactor with its safety mechanisms to manage waste. However, scientists at Stanford University and University of British Columbia had worked out some technical flaws in SMRs. They reached the opposite conclusion to what SMR advocates had to say. They said there’s going to be more radioactive leakage owing to the small design that can’t absorb and take away byproduct neutrons from the chain reaction.
However, these generate one-third the energy of a conventional nuclear power plant and are said to be cheaper to design and manufacture. But how soon can they be deployed?
In the US, their Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized one such SMR design, by NuScale although it will be demonstrated only in 2029.
Spencer Lamb, Chief Commercial Officer at British data center developed Kao Data, said in the same BBC report, “I’ve heard about SMRs, but it will take a long time to deploy a nuclear-configured data center in the UK, and AI is happening now.”
BBC interviewed Dr Doug Parr, who’s chief scientist of the non-profit environmental activist group, Greenpeace UK, who labeled the unfolding story about SMRs powering AI data centers as mere ‘hype’. He said tech companies will develop cold feet when they realize that SMRs would prove to be much costly when they’re finally demonstrated. “Unrealistic hype lies behind the cost estimates for SMRs,” said Dr Parr. “This hype will fall away as delays and difficulties emerge.”
Paradoxically, we’ll never know how safe a technology is, unless we’ve already tested them.
However, Dr Michael Bluck a nuclear engineer at Imperial College London, UK was more optimistic – at least in a technical standpoint. He said, “There’s no reason why a small fast reactor can’t power a data center, except that you have to get it past the regulator.”
What about public trust though? The BBC doesn’t cover that. Won’t they have the final say in this case, since it involves nuclear energy? At least in history, nuclear energy has been a point of contention in the West, with public suspecting whether authorities were truly capable of ensuring safeguards against radioactive leakages and waste management. In Germany, policy failure to reassure the public actually led to the wide-spread phase out of nuclear reactors. Public trust is hard to achieve, but it takes the government and scientists to trust them back.
In the UK back in 1957, local farmers in Cumbria, England had suspected radioactive leakages from the Sellafield nuclear plant. However, authorities and scientists didn’t pay attention to the farmer’s concerns of a leak, until farmers strenuously lobbied to get the site checked for by scientists – later positively verifying the claims, leading to the shutdown of the plant.
The point isn’t that nuclear energy is somehow more unsafe compared to other forms of energy, say renewable energy. The numbers of countries operating nuclear reactors have actually expanded to 32 countries, including developing countries, with some 436 reactors operational of today.
Yes, catastrophe has occurred in the past – there’s the infamous Chernobyl and Fukushima events. The US alone had witnessed the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in 1979. But we don’t want that to happen again.
The point is – paradoxically – we’ll never know how safe a technology is, unless we’ve already tested them.
But before that we need to keep the dialogue on as we discuss and discover hidden risks.