Business
Big Tech’s Sudden Rush Into Nuclear Is A Win-Win For America

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By David Blackmon
The U.S. power-generation sector has been hit in recent weeks with story after story about Big Tech firms entering into deals with power providers or developers to satisfy their electricity needs with nuclear generation.
Here are some examples:
—In mid-October, Google said it had entered into an agreement to purchase power for its data center needs from Kairos Power, a developer of small modular reactors (SMRs).
—A couple of weeks earlier, Microsoft and Constellation completed a deal that would involve the restart of Unit 1 at the Three Mile Island facility in Pennsylvania to power that company’s needs.
—On Dec. 3, Meta issued a request for proposals to nuclear developers to provide up to 4 gigawatts (GW) of electricity to power data centers and AI no later than the early 2030s.
—Perhaps the most extensive development of all came two days after Google’s announcement, when Amazon announced it has entered into deals to support the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) with three developers in three different regions of the country.
So, what’s going on here? Aren’t all these Big Tech companies supposed to be totally bought into the climate-alarm narrative, a narrative that claims wind and solar are the only real “clean” energy solutions for power generation? Aren’t we constantly bombarded by boosters of those non-solutions that they are able to reliably provide uninterrupted electricity if backed up by stationary batteries?
Certainly, that has been the case in the past — few corporations could hope to match the volume of virtue signaling about green energy we have seen from these tech companies in recent years. That was all fine until, apparently, the AI revolution came along.
AI is an enormous power hog, one that these and other Big Tech firms must now rapidly adopt to remain competitive.
The trouble with AI and the data centers needed to make it go is that it requires the reliable, constant injection of electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days every year. While these Big Tech firms would no doubt love to be able to virtue signal about sourcing their power from wind and solar backed up by enormous banks of batteries, each and every one of them has assessed that option and realized it cannot reliably fill their needs.
Thus, the recent rush to nuclear. After all, once they’ve been built and placed into service, nuclear reactors are a very real zero emissions power source. And unlike wind and solar, nuclear plants do not have to be backed up by an equal amount of generation capacity provided by another fuel, consisting most often of natural gas plants. Nuclear reactors are basically the Energizer Bunnies of power generation: They just keep going and going.
Another big advantage nuclear brings over renewables is the avoidance of the need to invest in massive new transmission networks. This is especially true of SMRs, which can be installed directly adjacent to the contracting data centers. By contrast, wind generation installations must be located in areas where the wind reliably blows. Such areas are often hundreds of miles away from big demand centers, as has been the case in Texas.
Where solar is concerned, the provision of multiple gigawatts (GWs) of generation capacity can require the condemnation of hundreds of acres of land, often thousands. The stationary battery centers for 1 GW of solar or wind would require another large swath of land to be condemned. By contrast, the land footprint for a pair of 500 megawatt (MW) SMRs would amount to no more than a few acres.
Where the deal between Microsoft and Constellation is concerned, sourcing power from an older generation nuclear plant like Three Mile Island will involve interconnecting into an already extant transmission system, though some upgrades and extensions will no doubt be required.
This sudden rush to nuclear by some of the largest companies in the country will benefit all Americans. The massive infusion of capital will accelerate development of SMRs and other advanced nuclear tech, pressure policymakers to modernize antiquated nuclear regulations, and to streamline Byzantine permitting processes that currently inhibit all forms of energy development.
It is a win-win situation for all of us.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Business
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
Mike Davies calls for ambition and reform to build a stronger Canada
A shift in ambition
A year after the Trans Mountain Expansion Project came into service, Mike Davies, Senior Director of Marine Development at Trans Mountain, told the B.C. Business Summit 2025 that the project’s success should mark the beginning of a new national mindset — one defined by ambition, reform, and nation building.
“It took fifteen years to get this version of the project built,” Davies said. “During that time, Canadian producers lost about $50 billion in value because they were selling into a discounted market. We have some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas, but we can only trade with one other country. That’s unusual.”
With the expansion now in operation, that imbalance is shifting. “The differential on Canadian oil has narrowed by about $13 billion,” he said. “That’s value that used to be extracted by the United States and now stays in Canada — supporting healthcare, reconciliation, and energy transformation. About $5 billion of that is in royalties and taxes. It’s meaningful for us as a society.”
Davies rejected the notion that Trans Mountain was a public subsidy. “The federal government lent its balance sheet so that nation-building infrastructure could get built,” he said. “In our first full year of operation, we’ll return more than $1.3 billion to the federal government, rising toward $2 billion annually as cleanup work wraps up.”
At the Westridge Marine Terminal, shipments have increased from one tanker a week to nearly one a day, with more than half heading to Asia. “California remains an important market,” Davies said, “but diversification is finally happening — and it’s vital to our long-term prosperity.”
Fixing the system to move forward
Davies said this moment of success should prompt a broader rethinking of how Canada approaches resource development. “We’re positioned to take advantage of this moment,” he said. “Public attitudes are shifting. Canadians increasingly recognize that our natural resource advantages are a strength, not a liability. The question now is whether governments can seize it — and whether we’ll see that reflected in policy.”
He argued that governments have come to view regulation as a “free good,” without acknowledging its economic consequences. “Over the past decade, we’ve seen policy focus almost exclusively on environmental and reconciliation objectives,” he said. “Those are vital, but the public interest extends well beyond that — to include security, economic welfare, the rule of law, transparency, and democratic participation.”
Davies said good policy should not need to be bypassed to get projects built. “I applaud the creation of a Major Projects Office, but it’s a disgrace that we have to end run the system,” he said. “We need to fix it.”
He called for “deep, long-term reform” to restore scalability and investment confidence. “Linear infrastructure like pipelines requires billions in at-risk capital before a single certificate is issued,” he said. “Canada has a process for everything — we’re a responsible country — but it doesn’t scale for nation-building projects.”
Regulatory reform, he added, must go hand in hand with advancing economic reconciliation. “The challenge of our generation is shifting Indigenous communities from dependence to participation,” he said. “That means real ownership, partnership, and revenue opportunities.”
Davies urged renewed cooperation between Alberta and British Columbia, calling for “interprovincial harmony” on West Coast access. “I’d like to see Alberta see B.C. as part of its constituency,” he said. “And I’d like to see B.C. recognize the need for access.”
He summarized the path forward in plain terms: “We need to stem the exit of capital, create an environment that attracts investment, simplify approvals to one major process, and move decisions from the courts to clear legislation. If we do that, we can finally move from being a market hostage to being a competitor — and a nation builder.”
Business
Canada is still paying the price for Trudeau’s fiscal delusions
This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Lee Harding
Trudeau’s reckless spending has left Canadians with record debt, poorer services and no path back to a balanced budget
Justin Trudeau may be gone, but the economic consequences of his fiscal approach—chronic deficits, rising debt costs and stagnating growth—are still weighing heavily on Canada
Before becoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau famously said, “The budget will balance itself.” He argued that if expenditures stayed the same, economic growth would drive higher tax revenues and eventually outpace spending. Voila–balance!
But while the theory may have been sound, Trudeau had no real intention of pursuing a balanced budget. In 2015, he campaigned on intentionally overspending and borrowing heavily to build infrastructure, arguing that low interest rates made
it the right time to run deficits.
This argument, weak in its concept, proved even more flawed in practice. Postpandemic deficits have been horrendous, far exceeding the modest overspending initially promised. The budgetary deficit was $327.7 billion in 2020–21, $90.3 billion the year following, and between $35.3 billion and $61.9 billion in the years since.
Those formerly historically low interest rates are also gone now, partly because the federal government has spent so much. The original excuse for deficits has vanished, but the red ink and Canada’s infrastructure deficit remain.
For two decades, interest payments on federal debt steadily declined, falling from 24.6 per cent of government revenues in 1999–2000 to just 5.9 per cent in 2021–22—thanks largely to falling interest rates and prior fiscal restraint. But that trend has reversed. By 2023–24, payments surged past 10 per cent for the first time in over a decade, as rising interest rates collided with record federal debt built up under Trudeau.
Rising debt costs are only part of the story. Federal revenues aren’t what they could have been because Canada’s economy has stagnated. High immigration, which drives productivity down, is the only thing masking our lacklustre GDP growth. Altogether, Canada was 35th among 38 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for per capita GDP growth from 2014 to 2022 at just 0.2 per cent. By comparison, Ireland led at 45.2 per cent, followed by the U.S. at 20.8 per cent.
Why should a country like Canada, so blessed with natural resources and knowhow, do so poorly? Capital investment has fled because our government has made onerous regulations, especially hindering our energy industry. In theory, there’s now a remedy. Thanks to new legislation, the Carney government can extend its magic sceptre to those who align with its agenda to fast-track major projects and bypass the labyrinth it created. But unless you’re onside, the red tape still strangles you.
But as the private sector withers under red tape, Ottawa’s civil service keeps ballooning. Some trimming has begun, rattling public sector unions. Still, Canada will be left with at least five times as many federal tax employees per capita as the U.S.
Canada also needs to ease its hell-bent pursuit of net-zero carbon emissions. Hydrocarbons still power the Canadian economy—from vehicles to home heating—and aren’t practically replaceable. Canada has already proven that chasing net zero leads to near-zero per capita growth. Despite high immigration, the OECD projects Canada to have the lowest overall GDP growth between 2021 and 2060.
The Nov. 4 release of the federal budget is better late than never. So would be a plan to grow the economy, slash red tape and eliminate the deficit. But we’re unlikely to get one.
Trudeau may be gone, but his legacy of fiscal recklessness is alive and well.
Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country
-
Business1 day agoCarney government risks fiscal crisis of its own making
-
Alberta1 day agoB.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day agoChurches Are All That Stands Between Canada And Tyranny
-
Business12 hours agoTrans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta introduces bill allowing province to reject international agreements
-
Energy11 hours agoCAPP calls on federal government to reset energy policy before it’s too late
-
Business2 days agoTrump Admin Establishing Council To Make Buildings Beautiful Again
-
International2 days agoUS Deploys Gerald Ford Carrier Strike Group To Target Cartels

