Wow, they are really accelerating the implementation of their dystopian METAVERSE.  For years they have been telling us exactly what they were planning but people just did not take them seriously.  It seemed so absurd and at best so distant.  No one thought it could be accomplished in our lifetime.  

The mega structures that are gobbling up the world’s landscapes should be all you need to convince you that humanity is in trouble.  It is not just the Data Centers alone, as you will see in this post.  People are being dismissed/displaced|
/destroyed by what this technology is BUILDING.   A world without humanity.

All of this is not only destroying humans, but our environment as well.  In the interest of getting their technology up and running quickly and economically, all the noise about protecting the environment is being silenced.  They are re-establishing fossil fuel energy, hydropower, and as soon as possible all forms of nuclear energy, and suddenly claiming these can be used with little to no threat to the environment.  Isn’t that Amazing?

Due to the rise of artificial intelligence, machine learning, ChatGPT, Holograms, big data, the Singularity, the Internet of Things, and the Internet of Everything, the data centers’ global electricity consumption will continue to increase, which is another driving factor for green data centers.

OK. We know that there will be A LOT more data in our world. And we know that new solutions like the ‘metaverse’ will also reside in the data center. By the way, if you’re curious as to what the metaverse is and how it’ll live in your data center, be sure to read this article on the topic.

As AI companies race to secure power for their data centers, natural gas is having a moment.

“Speed matters,” Vivian Lee, a managing director and partner at Boston Consulting Group, told Business Insider. “Bringing a site online even a year earlier can have a meaningful economic impact.“

Lee said it typically takes two to three years to build a data center, assuming the local community is on board. If they aren’t, it could take longer. At the same time, grid upgrades can take four to eight years, so AI companies are looking for faster ways to secure power, Lee said.

One of the quickest ways to do that these days is to use existing natural gas infrastructure. Gas plants can often be built or expanded faster than nuclear projects, plug into an extensive pipeline network, and provide greater energy security than renewable resources.

“The most important metric now is speed to power — and a lot of it. That’s why gas is back in focus,” Jamie Webster, a senior director and partner at BCG, said.

Renewables take a back seat

Natural gas produces less carbon dioxide per unit of energy than coal or oil when burned, but it is still a fossil fuel and a driver of the climate crisis.

That makes Silicon Valley’s recent embrace of natural gas notable.

American tech leaders have long positioned themselves as leaders in the shift to renewables. Tech giants, including Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta, signed massive wind and solar power deals as recently as last year to offset the growing electricity demand of their data centers.

Those deals, however, may have been more about money than principle.

Webster said the focus on renewables has been driven not only by sustainability goals, but also by their ability to lower energy costs over time, since they’re the only energy source whose costs tend to decline.

“Over the past decade, technologies like solar, wind, and batteries saw cost reductions of up to 90%, which fundamentally changed the equation,” he said.

The bottom line is also what’s now driving the shift back to natural gas, he said, especially as AI companies raise massive amounts of capital to build the technology’s infrastructure while still showing little in comparative revenue.

In conversations with developers and energy providers, Lee said renewables are seen as “essential, but not sufficient on their own.”

Carbon capture technology could help blunt the environmental impact of more natural gas use. The process traps carbon dioxide from power plants or industrial facilities before it reaches the atmosphere, then stores it underground or reuses it. That could allow companies to keep using natural gas while reducing the emissions that make it a major contributor to the climate crisis.

Webster, however, said that carbon capture technology — sometimes known as CCUS, or “Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage” — is still in the early stages of scaling.

The world has now entered a “structural supercycle,” driven in part by data centers, electrification, and cooling demand, Webster said.

“That growth is putting pressure on supply, and in many cases, gas is one of the fastest ways to meet it.”

spacer

New Giga Data Centers and Fossil Fuel Power

The rapid expansion of giga-scale data centers — massive facilities like those from Meta, Google, and Microsoft — is driving a surge in demand for electricity, prompting many to rely on fossil fuel–fueled power plants.

Why Fossil Fuels Are Being Used

Large hyperscale data centers can consume tens to hundreds of megawatts of power continuously, with some projects rivaling the energy use of entire cities Yahoo. In 2023, U.S. data centers (excluding crypto) used about 176 terawatt-hours of electricity — roughly 4.4% of national electricity — up from 1.9% in 2018 news.oilandgaswatch.org. By 2030, demand could reach 6.7–12% of total U.S. energy consumption (Likely much more!) news.oilandgaswatch.org.

This growth is fueled by AI, cloud computing, and cryptocurrency mining. Outside traditional hubs like Northern Virginia and Silicon Valley, companies are building in Phoenix, Dallas–Fort Worth, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and rural areas such as the Texas Panhandle and West Virginia  (Utah, Michigan, Montana & Neveda) news.oilandgaswatch.org.  Tesla Gigafactory is part of the rapidly expanding Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center (TRIC) in northern Nevada, which is becoming one of the largest data center campuses in the U.S. The Sierra Nevada Ally. TRIC spans a landmass larger than Denver and is anchored by Switch,  Google,  Microsoft, and Apple, with Tesla’s Gigafactory integrated into the same industrial corridor The Sierra Nevada Ally.

Fossil Fuel Expansion

The boom is accelerating the construction of new gas-fired power plants to meet demand. The Trump administration has issued an executive order speeding up permitting for both large data centers and power generators, and the EPA is streamlining chemical approvals for data centers news.oilandgaswatch.org.

Some projects are even reviving older, “dirty” fossil plants that were scheduled for retirement, delaying closures to ensure grid reliability Frontier Group.

Environmental and Grid Concerns

Environmental groups warn that fossil-fuel–powered data centers could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions unless paired with clean energy or efficiency measures Environmental and Energy Study Institute. About 56% of data center electricity comes from fossil fuels Environmental and Energy Study Institute.

Carbon Capture as a Mitigation Strategy

Some companies, like Google, are entering into corporate power purchase agreements to support natural gas plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS). CCS technology captures CO₂ from power plants and injects it underground for long-term storage, aiming to keep emissions nearly zero The Invading Sea+1.

Bottom Line

The giga data center boom is creating a tension between energy demand and climate goals:

• Demand drivers: AI, cloud, crypto mining, and constant server operation.
• Energy sources: Natural gas plants, some with CCS, and revived coal/gas units.
• Risks: Grid strain, higher electricity prices, and increased emissions unless offset by renewables or efficiency.  (Even if they employ CCS and other tools to offset the problems, those efforts will not show any major results for some time.)

This trend underscores the need for strategic siting, energy efficiency, and clean power integration to balance the economic benefits of data centers with environmental sustainability.

spacer

Oil companies are deploying AI to optimize extraction—then selling the power those operations generate to fuel more AI data centers.  getty

AI data centers are colliding with grid limits—and oil majors are responding with off-grid, gas-fired generation built specifically to supply them.

In the process, they can profit from AI twice: deploying AI to raise efficiency and output, then selling gas power directly to data centers, a loop that could reinforce fossil dependence for years.

The playbook operates on two reinforcing tracks. Deploy AI across operations to boost production and cut costs. Build dedicated power infrastructure selling natural gas electricity directly to data centers. The more efficiently AI helps extraction, the more gas gets generated to power more data centers.

ADNOC perfected the model first

Abu Dhabi National Oil Company deployed 30+ AI tools generating $500 million in value and abating up to 1 million tonnes of CO2 emissions between 2022-2023. November 2025’s AiPSO launch with SLB was deployed across eight oil fields, with ADNOC stating an ambition to scale across 25 fields by 2027—a shift from pilots toward operational deployment.

The strategic breakthrough: ADNOC’s partnership with Microsoft and Masdar creates a symbiotic loop. The partnership frames a potential ‘energy for AI / AI for energy’ loop: Masdar and ADNOC are working with Microsoft on solutions to support data-center/AI infrastructure and deploy AI across energy operations—with renewables positioned as part of the supply mix—while ADNOC also positions itself as an energy supplier to the AI economy.

WAIT, NOW WHAT?  If the Data Centers are robing US citizens of all their power, and being allowed to re-introduce fossil fuels to increase their supply of power, why are they not contracting with U.S. companies? Why are we continuing to support the Arabs?  They sure don’t need us, they are quite wealthy as it is.   Do you recognize/acknowledge that the elite have sold you out?  The globalists are only concerned with their NWO and they will steal, kill and destroy you to accomplish it.

ADNOC is the state-owned oil company of Abu Dhabi, UAE, and one of the world’s leading energy producers, operating across the entire hydrocarbon value chain. Overview The Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) was established in 1971 and is the largest oil company in the United Arab Emirates, ranking as the 12th largest globally by production Wikipedia. ADNOC operates across the full hydrocarbon value chain, including exploration, production, storage, refining, trading, and petrochemical development moet.gov.ae+1. Its network includes 16 subsidiary companies covering upstream, midstream, and downstream operations Wikipedia. Production and Reserves ADNOC has an oil production capacity exceeding 4 million barrels per day, with plans to increase to 5 million barrels per day by 2030 (ya, on our soil) Wikipedia. It also produces 10.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day uaeiic.ae. The UAE holds the sixth-largest proven oil reserves globally, with most located in Abu Dhabi, making ADNOC a key player in global energy markets Wikipedia.  So, why do we want to make them bigger? Must be about the money Bill Gates an his buddies will make. Masdar is a clean energy pioneer positioning the UAE at the forefront of the worldwide energy transition. Based in Abu Dhabi, Masdar is one of the world’s fastest-growing renewable energy companies and a pioneer in advancing the clean energy sector since 2006. Masdar is a key enabler of the UAE’s vision as a global leader in sustainability and climate action, supporting the UAE Consensus and the legacy of COP28.   Masdar is proud to be a strategic partner with many world-leading energy companies in the UAE and international markets. Working alongside government and business, we are helping to demonstrate the long-term economic viability of renewable energy while creating long-term value for Abu Dhabi. Strategic Projects and Investments ADNOC has launched major projects such as the Ghasha mega-project, the world’s largest offshore sour gas development moet.gov.ae. The company has also invested in chemicals and petrochemical ventures, including joint projects with ADQ in the Ruwais Derivatives Park and acquisitions like Fertiglobe, OMV, and Covestro Wikipedia. ADNOC is actively expanding into renewable energy and green hydrogen, partnering with Masdar to support lower-carbon growth www.adnoc.ae. Technology and Sustainability ADNOC integrates advanced technology and AI to optimize operations, reduce carbon emissions, and improve efficiency www.adnoc.ae. It became the first major hydrocarbon producer to use 100% zero-carbon nuclear and solar energy for onshore electricity needs. The company is also committed to environmental initiatives, such as planting 10 million mangroves by 2030 and reducing offshore operational carbon footprints by up to 50% www.adnoc.ae. Workforce and Economic Impact ADNOC employs over 50,000 people from more than 100 nationalities, contributing significantly to Abu Dhabi’s economic diversification and knowledge-based economy uaeiic.ae. The company has created thousands of jobs, invested in education and research, and continues to drive industrial growth and global energy partnerships LinkedIn. Global Role ADNOC is a major international energy player, producing and exporting oil and gas while investing in global chemical and energy markets. Its strategic acquisitions and partnerships enhance its influence in both traditional hydrocarbons and emerging clean energy sectors Wikipedia+1. ADNOC’s combination of large-scale production, technological innovation, and sustainability initiatives positions it as a central driver of Abu Dhabi’s economic growth and a key contributor to global energy security.

SPACER

AI optimizes fossil fuel production, which powers data centers, which run AI that optimizes more production.

American majors are building the infrastructure now

Chevron is reported to be pursuing its first ~2.5 GW natural gas plant in West Texas (expandable to ~5 GW) for an undisclosed data center customer (Why are they allowed to remain undisclosed? The public should be allowed to know who is invading their community), targeting 2027 operations.. CFO Eimear Bonner framed the logic: “We’ve got the gas.” The company has large Permian natural gas volumes, and pipeline constraints can make on-site power sales more attractive than marginal disposal.

If built behind-the-meter / largely off-grid, projects like this can reduce dependence on grid interconnection queues and can function as a form of regulatory arbitrage, depending on jurisdiction—locking in gas infrastructure before stricter data-center standards arrive.

ExxonMobil announced a 1.5 GW plant in December 2024—their first power plant not serving own operations. The company has communicated a target of ~$15 billion in structural cost savings by 2027 (relative to a 2019 baseline), with digital/AI initiatives presented as one contributor among several. Their AI procurement system delivered 40x ROI ($19 million) in 2024, proving internal AI pays for itself while external power sales generate profit.

Saudi Aramco is building sovereign AI with its Metabrain model—trained on 90 years of data, currently 250 billion parameters targeting 1 trillion. The partnership with Groq to establish the world’s largest inferencing data center in Saudi Arabia signals transformation from oil exporter to digital infrastructure provider.

The mechanism: waste gas becomes profit

The business model works through three channels converting environmental problems into revenue.

Stranded gas monetization: Associated natural gas that would be flared powers co-located data centers. Crusoe Energy operates 40 such facilities. But this creates perverse incentives—data centers justify continued oil production generating the gas.

Behind-the-meter generation: Dedicated plants supply power directly without touching public grids. This accelerates permitting while avoiding renewable standards and 8+ year interconnection queues.

Carbon capture integration: ExxonMobil estimates decarbonizing AI data centers could represent 20% of the total addressable market for CCS by 2050. Aramco’s CCS partnerships with Linde and SLB use identical logic. The (decarboniztion) technology exists but operates at minuscule scale relative to claims.

The environmental cost compounds

Data center emissions from electricity use will rise from 180 million tonnes today to 300-500 million tonnes by 2035 globally—remaining below 1.5% of total energy sector emissions. Training GPT-3 consumed 1,287 megawatt-hours, generating 552 tons of CO2.

Fossil fuels currently meet 60% of data centers’ energy demand. The IEA’s Net Zero scenario eliminates all non-emergency flaring by 2030, yet oil companies are building infrastructure extending fossil economics through the 2040s.  The new MegaData Centers are not able to adhere to their renewable energy commitments.  They require far to much energy, far to quickly.

Five signals reveal strategic coordination

The 2027 convergence: Every major targets 2027 for operational capacity—Chevron’s West Texas plant, Exxon’s commercial scaling, ADNOC’s infrastructure expansion. This coordinated timeline suggests recognition that the window closes when renewables scale sufficiently.

Customer secrecy: Chevron’s undisclosed customer and Exxon’s vague “powering the AI revolution” language indicate deals with hyperscalers who don’t want public association with fossil-powered AI.

Operational AI maturity gap: Gulf producers deploy agentic AI at commercial scale while Western majors remain in pilot-to-commercial transition. Western companies become AI power providers, not technology leaders—controlling energy while ceding intelligence.

Regulatory preemption: Building off-grid now creates fait accompli before governments impose clean standards. Private contracts lock in fossil assets through 30-year operational lives.

The flaring paradox: Companies claim data centers reduce flaring, but the IEA states the solution is stopping oil production that creates stranded gas. Data centers don’t reduce flaring—they create demand justifying combustion of gas that should stay unproduced.

Why this matters beyond 2026

The dual strategy isn’t opportunistic positioning—it’s structural transformation where AI justifies continued fossil fuel extraction rather than accelerating energy transition.

Oil majors aren’t transitioning through AI. They’re using AI to create markets necessitating continued extraction. Infrastructure being built now operates for 30+ years. Chevron’s 2027 plant, Exxon’s dedicated facilities, ADNOC’s Microsoft partnership—these aren’t bridge solutions. They’re bets that AI demand outlasts political will to decarbonize data centers.

Big Oil discovered AI’s power appetite isn’t a challenge—it’s their growth lifeline. Every efficiency gain in extraction generates capacity to power data centers running that AI. The more successful AI becomes, the more entrenched fossil infrastructure becomes.

Whether this represents strategic vision or dangerous carbon lock-in depends on which arrives first: efficiency breakthroughs cratering AI power demand, or the point where 30-year commitments make fossil-powered AI irreversible.

spacer

oh, but wait, they are also going to be using COAL to supply energy to their insatiable DATA CENTERS

spacer

All EESI Data Center Resources

• Data center developers are increasingly tapping into freshwater resources to quench the thirst of data centers, which is putting nearby communities at risk.
• Large data centers can consume up to 5 million gallons per day, equivalent to the water use of a town populated by 10,000 to 50,000 people.
• With larger and new AI-focused data centers, water consumption is increasing alongside energy usage and carbon emissions.
• Novel technologies like direct-to-chip cooling and immersion cooling can reduce water and energy usage by data centers.

Data centers have a thirst for water, and their rapid expansion threatens freshwater supplies. Only 3% of Earth’s water is freshwater, and only 0.5% of all water is accessible and safe for human consumption. Freshwater is critical for survival. On average, a human being can live without water for only three days. Increasing drought and water shortages are reducing water availability. Meanwhile, data center developers are increasingly tapping into surface and underground aquifers to cool their facilities.

Data center water usage closely parallels energy usage and carbon emissions. As data centers use more energy for their typical data center operations and to meet AI requests, they consume larger amounts of water to cool their processor chips, so as to avoid overheating and potential damage. Similarly, as energy use increases in data centers, so do carbon emissions.

A medium-sized data center can consume up to roughly 110 million gallons of water per year for cooling purposes, equivalent to the annual water usage of approximately 1,000 households. Larger data centers can each “drink” up to 5 million gallons per day, or about 1.8 billion annually, usage equivalent to a town of 10,000 to 50,000 people. Together, (already) the nation’s 5,426 data centers consume billions of gallons of water annually. One report estimated that U.S. data centers consume 449 million gallons of water per day and 163.7 billion gallons annually (as of 2021). A 2016 report found that fewer than one-third of data center operators track water consumption. Water consumption is expected to continue increasing as data centers grow in number, size, and complexity (at breakneck speed).

According to scientists at the University of California, Riverside, each 100-word AI prompt is estimated to use roughly one bottle of water (or 519 milliliters). This may not sound like much, but billions of AI users worldwide enter prompts into systems like ChatGPT every minute. Large language models require many energy-intensive calculations, necessitating liquid cooling systems.

The Water Cycle of Data Centers

A data center’s water footprint is calculated as the sum of three categories: on-site water usage, water use by power plant facilities that supply power to data centers, and water consumption during the manufacturing process of processor chips. Water can come from various sources, including blue sources (e.g., surface water and groundwater), piped sources such as municipal water, and gray sources (e.g., purified reclaimed water). Using recycled or non-potable water to meet a data center’s cooling needs is a well-established practice to conserve limited potable water resources, particularly in dry or drought-prone areas.

In the context of data centers, “water consumption” refers to the amount of water withdrawn from blue or gray sources minus the water discharged by the centers (primarily warm water left over from cooling the IT racks). The consumed water is generally the water that evaporates or is otherwise taken out of immediate human usage. Withdrawal of fresh water from local streams or underground aquifers may lead to aquifer exhaustion, particularly in water-stressed areas.

Researchers at The Green Grid, a nonprofit industry consortium, developed a metric called Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE) to measure water usage by data centers. Similar to the Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) metric, which measures the energy efficiency of a data center, the WUE metric assesses the efficiency of a data center’s water use. WUE is reported in liters per kilowatt-hour (kWh): a data center’s total water consumption, measured in liters, is divided by the total energy consumed by that data center in kilowatt-hours in the same time period. While “0” is the ideal WUE score, this can only be achieved in air-cooled data centers, and most data centers cannot meet this target due to their location’s climate conditions. The average WUE across data centers is 1.9 liters per kWh, which is a great goal to beat.  But, that is old data.  These humungous MegaDataCenters that are just beginning to pop up and getting bigger and bigger, will place the population in death mode if we do not stop the madness.  my opinion and I am entitled to it.

Data centers’ water usage depends on various factors, including location, climate, water availability, size, and IT rack chip densities. In hotter climates, like in the southwest United States, data centers need to use more water to cool the building and equipment. With the increasing number of centers supporting AI requests, chip density is also growing, which leads to higher room temperatures, necessitating the use of more water chillers at the server level to maintain cool temperatures. Most data centers use a combination of chillers and on-site cooling towers to avoid chip overheating.

Cooling data centers is a complex operation. At the server level, water chillers cool IT rooms to maintain optimal temperatures and prevent damage to chips. This can be achieved through air cooling using water evaporation, which is an open-loop and more water-intensive method, or through server liquid cooling. Server cooling is a more expensive approach that delivers the liquid coolant directly to the graphics processing units (GPUs) and central processing units (CPUs). Direct-to-chip liquid cooling and immersive liquid cooling are two standard server liquid cooling technologies that dissipate heat while significantly reducing water consumption. During immersive cooling, water or specialized synthetic liquids flood the chips, absorbing the heat. The difference between direct server liquid cooling and air cooling through evaporation can be compared to the difference between drip irrigation and flooding in agriculture.

In areas with limited water availability, server liquid cooling is the best choice, as it requires minimal water consumption. Conversely, in areas with a strained power grid, an evaporative air cooling tower is a suitable building design, as it requires minimal power usage.

Regardless of the approach chosen, a heat exchanger is necessary to capture the hot air or hot water produced as a byproduct of the cooling process. Hot water coming from the servers is cooled by water from either the air-cooled chiller or a cooling tower. Likewise, hot air is exchanged with cooler air. A heat exchanger transfers heat from the server room to the building’s cooling system.

Approximately 80% of the water (typically freshwater) withdrawn by data centers evaporates, with the remaining water discharged to municipal wastewater facilities. The large volume of wastewater from data centers may overwhelm existing local facilities, which were not designed to handle such a high volume.

Besides on-site water consumption, a significant portion of data center water usage originates from the power facilities where they obtain their energy. Because 56% of the electricity used to power data centers nationwide comes from fossil fuels, a significant portion of data center water consumption is derived from steam-generating power plants. Fossil fuel power plants rely on large boilers filled with water that is superheated by natural gas or coal to produce steam, which in turn rotates a turbine and generates electricity. Water withdrawals from these power plants are a significant source of water stress, particularly in drought-prone areas and in the summer, when water levels are lower and electricity demands are higher.

A federal report estimated that the indirect water consumption footprint (from electricity use) of data centers in the United States was roughly 211 billion gallons in 2023. Given that 176 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity were consumed by data centers in 2023, the centers’ indirect water consumption can be estimated at 1.2 gallons per kWh on average nationally in 2023. As data centers are expected to consume up to 1,050 TWh annually by 2030, water usage will increase in parallel.

Chip and server manufacturing are significant sources of water consumption for data centers. Semiconductors and computer chips are integral to data center processing. Each server in a data center contains multiple CPUs, GPUs, and memory chips. Larger data centers and those that support AI requests can contain tens of thousands of servers, each with multiple chips. Ultrapure water is ideal for cleaning, etching, and rinsing chips during the manufacturing process. Creating ultrapure water is a highly water-intensive process, requiring approximately 1,500 gallons of piped water to produce 1,000 gallons of ultrapure water. An average chip manufacturing facility consumes approximately 10 million gallons of ultrapure water per day. A single chip installed in a data center has already consumed thousands of gallons of water by the time it reaches the site.

Water-cooled high computing systems in a data center. Credit: ECMWF Data Center.

Water Impacts in Nearby Communities

The water consumption of the 5,426 data centers nationwide is already impacting local communities. Northern Virginia is considered the world capital for data centers, with over 300 operational data centers spread across four counties: Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and Fauquier. Collectively, all data centers in Northern Virginia consumed close to 2 billion gallons of water in 2023, a 63% increase from 2019. Loudoun County, with approximately 200 operational data centers, used around 900 million gallons of water in 2023. This has led Loudoun Water, the county’s water authority, to rely heavily on potable water for data centers rather than reclaimed water.

Author: Miguel Yañez-Barnuevo

Negative Impacts of Gigawatt-Scale Data Centers Using Hydropower

While hydropower is a renewable energy source, gigawatt-scale data centers—especially those powered by hydropower—still carry significant environmental and community costs that can outweigh the benefits.

1. Massive Water Consumption and Strain on Local Resources
Even with renewable electricity, these facilities require millions of gallons of water annually for cooling Ford School+1. In hydropower-rich regions, this can divert water from rivers, aquifers, or municipal supplies, potentially lowering local water tables, affecting agriculture, and competing with other users. In some cases, cooling towers draw from already stressed water systems, as seen in Mississippi’s Big Black River system sustainabilitydialogue.uchicago.edu.

2. Ecosystem Disruption
Large-scale hydropower projects often involve dams, reservoirs, and altered river flows, which can harm fish migration, disrupt sediment transport, and degrade aquatic habitats impactclimate.mit.edu. If a data center’s hydropower source is tied to such infrastructure, the combined impact—power generation plus cooling water use—can amplify ecological damage.

3. Air and Water Pollution from Cooling Systems
Cooling towers and chemical treatments can release particulates, volatile organic compounds, and microplastics into air and waterways sustainabilitydialogue.uchicago.edu. In hydropower regions, these pollutants may enter rivers already affected by dam operations, compounding water quality issues.

4. Grid and Energy System Pressures
Even with renewable electricity, the sheer load from gigawatt-scale data centers can strain local grids and transmission systems CleanTechnica. In some cases, this has led to proposals for new fossil-fuel plants to back up demand, undermining climate goals Clean Energy Group.

5. Public Health and Community Displacement Risks
Proximity to data centers—especially in vulnerable or historically underserved communities—can lead to environmental injustice. Residents may face higher asthma rates, noise, and visual blight, as seen in protests over new facilities sustainabilitydialogue.uchicago.edu. Hydropower projects themselves can also displace communities if they involve large-scale dam construction.

6. Long-Term Energy and Water Trade-offs
While hydropower avoids direct CO₂ emissions, the water footprint of cooling can negate some climate benefits if local water scarcity is already a problem Ford School+1. Additionally, hydropower capacity is often fixed, so the data center’s energy demand may still require backup from other sources.

spacer

spacer

spacer

Hidden Dangers and Risks of Nuclear Power

Nuclear power is often praised for its low carbon emissions and high energy output, but it carries serious and sometimes underappreciated risks that must be weighed carefully.

1. Long-Term Radioactive Waste
Nuclear reactors produce high-level radioactive waste that remains hazardous for thousands to millions of years. For example, Iodine-129 has a half-life of 16 million years environbuzz.com. Current storage solutions are limited, and permanent disposal remains a major unresolved challenge. Waste includes spent fuel, reactor components, and uranium mill tailings, all subject to strict regulation but still posing long-term environmental and health risks U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

2. Accident and Disaster Risks
While statistically rare, catastrophic accidents like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island can release large amounts of radiation, contaminating air, water, and soil. These events can cause acute radiation sickness, long-term cancer risks, and displacement of populations Collegenp+1. Even small releases can travel far via wind or ocean currents, affecting regions far from the plant environbuzz.com.

3. Environmental Contamination
Radiation does not stay localized. Historical nuclear testing and accidents have shown that radioactive isotopes can cross oceans and continents, contaminating food chains and ecosystems. For example, Fukushima radiation reached the U.S. West Coast in 2013, affecting marine life environbuzz.com.

4. Security and Proliferation Threats
Nuclear facilities are potential targets for terrorism, sabotage, or theft of fissile materials. This risk is compounded by the dual-use nature of nuclear technology, which can be diverted for weapons programs Collegenp.

5. Human Error and System Failures
Complex systems and high-stakes operations mean that human error, equipment failure, or degraded safety systems can lead to accidents. Fukushima highlighted how extreme natural events can overwhelm backup power and cooling systems scienceinsights.org.

6. Underestimation of Radiation Risks
Even low-level radiation exposure is linked to increased cancer risk, and there is no “safe” dose of ionizing radiation according to some experts environbuzz.com. Public perception often underestimates these risks compared to the statistical safety of nuclear power in terms of deaths per unit of energy scienceinsights.org.

7. Infrastructure and Construction Emissions
While operation produces no CO₂, the mining, refining, and construction of nuclear plants require significant energy, often from fossil fuels, which can offset some climate benefits U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

spacer

Beware The Dangers of Nuclear Energy – Hidden Terrors Written by Wayne Foster in Nuclear EXCERPTS ONLY SHARED HERE. To read the entire article CLICK HERE The Dangers of Nuclear Energy Firstly, In the pursuit of advancing our energy systems, nuclear energy has emerged as a formidable source. Promising to meet the insatiable demand for power while reducing carbon emissions. However, beneath the surface of these benefits lies a complex and potentially hazardous reality. Still, the dangers of nuclear energy, encompassing everything from catastrophic accidents to the long-term handling of radioactive waste, present significant challenges and risks to our health, safety, and the environment. Thus this article aims to shed light on these concerns. Introduction to the Dangers of Nuclear Energy Nuclear energy, derived from the process of nuclear fission in nuclear reactors, has been a cornerstone of the global energy supply. While it offers a lower-carbon alternative to fossil fuels, the inherent dangers associated with nuclear power plants cannot be overlooked. From catastrophic events like the Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima accident to the persistent issues of radioactive waste management. And the potential for nuclear proliferation, the risks are manifold. Still, understanding these dangers requires a deep dive into the workings of nuclear reactors. Also the lifecycle of nuclear fuel, and the measures in place to safeguard public health and the environment. Therefore, it is a journey that reveals the complexities of balancing energy needs with the imperative to protect future generations from the adverse effects of nuclear energy. The Lifecycle of Nuclear Energy and Its Hidden Dangers Nuclear Reactors: The Heart of the Matter At the core of the dangers of nuclear energy is the nuclear reactor, where nuclear fission occurs. Thus, the process involves the splitting of uranium atoms to release a tremendous amount of heat, used to generate electricity. Despite the efficiency of this process, the potential for reactor core meltdowns poses a significant risk. Such events can lead to catastrophic radiation leaks, impacting human health and the surrounding environment for decades. The Shadow of Nuclear Accidents The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the Fukushima accident in 2011 serve as stark reminders. That of the catastrophic potential of nuclear energy. These events not only caused immediate harm through radiation exposure. But also had long-lasting effects on public health, environmental well-being, and the socio-economic fabric of the affected regions. They underscore the critical need for robust safety systems, emergency preparedness, and stringent regulatory oversight by bodies like the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Enduring Problem of Nuclear Waste Another significant danger of nuclear energy is the handling and storage of nuclear waste. In fact, radioactive waste, a byproduct of nuclear fission, remains hazardous for thousands of years. Indeed, posing a major problem for current and future generations. High-Level Waste: A Persistent Hazard High-level waste, including spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials, requires secure containment. To prevent radiation exposure to the environment and human populations. Currently, most high-level waste is stored at the nuclear power plants where it was generated. In pools or dry casks, awaiting a long-term disposal solution that remains elusive. Or at waste management facilities across the nation, or riding back and forth across the countryside in trucks or on trains. Come on now, give us some credit. We have done the research, the truth has been exposed.   Yucca Mountain: A Controversial Solution The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in the United States was intended to be a deep geological repository for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste. However, the project has faced significant political, technical, and social hurdles. Subsequently highlighting the challenges of finding acceptable solutions for nuclear waste management. Health Risks: Cancer and Beyond The dangers of nuclear energy extend to the increased risk of cancer and other health issues associated with radiation exposure. Workers in the nuclear industry, as well as communities living near nuclear facilities or those affected by nuclear accidents, face heightened risks of various cancers. Particularly thyroid cancer due to exposure to radioactive iodine. Cancer Risk and Radiation Exposure Radiation exposure from nuclear accidents or waste can lead to increased rates of cancer among exposed populations. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency acknowledges the need for stringent safety measures to minimize radiation exposure and protect human health. Protecting the Public and Workers Ensuring the safety of the public and workers in the nuclear industry is paramount. Hence, this includes strict adherence to safety protocols. Continuous monitoring of radiation levels, and the provision of protective measures. EXACTLY!  That is what has us concerned.  We have seen just how much corporations care about not only those who are living around their facilities but the people who work in them.  We have seen how our infrastructure is falling apart from neglect.  We have seen how the railroads have become disasters on wheels because af all the safety measures and maintenance policies that have been totally ignored for profit.  We see how the DataCenter/AI Industry cares so little for the welfare of the people and the land that you are railroading everything you want through the very institutions in place that are supposed to be protecting us. All you can see are the dollar signs and in your rush to get these monstrosities built, you are ready to crush anyone and anything that gets in your way.  Since you have already proven you don’t care about us in the beginning, we can only imagine how little you will care about maintenance and safety measures as these structures age and problems mount. spacer Socio-Economic Impacts of Nuclear Energy Nuclear power plants are massive investments that can have profound effects on local economies. While they create jobs and contribute to local development, the financial risks associated with cost overruns, long construction times, and the potential for accidents can have significant economic repercussions. Economic Viability and Cost Overruns The construction of new nuclear plants often faces delays and cost overruns, making nuclear power a risky financial investment. For instance, the Vogtle nuclear plant expansion in Georgia, USA, has experienced significant delays and budget increases. Raising concerns about the economic feasibility of new nuclear projects. These financial uncertainties can deter investment in nuclear power. Favoring more cost-effective and less risky renewable energy sources like solar and wind. Impact on Local Communities Nuclear power plants can have a mixed impact on local communities. On the one hand, they provide high-paying, skilled jobs and contribute to local tax revenues. On the other hand, the potential for accidents and the stigma associated with nuclear facilities can affect property values and community well-being. The need for emergency preparedness and the fear of radiation exposure can also weigh heavily on those living near nuclear plants. Ethical Considerations: Future Generations and Energy Equity The ethical dimensions of nuclear energy revolve around the responsibility we have towards future generations. And the equitable distribution of energy resources. Nuclear waste, with its long-lived radioactivity, presents a moral dilemma about the legacy we leave for those who will come after us. The Burden on Future Generations Managing nuclear waste requires a commitment extending thousands of years into the future. Far beyond the lifespans of current nuclear facilities. This raises ethical questions about our right to generate energy today which results in a hazardous legacy for future generations. The search for permanent waste disposal solutions, such as deep geological repositories, is an ongoing challenge that underscores the importance of responsible nuclear waste management. Addressing Global Energy Inequality While nuclear energy can contribute to reducing carbon emissions, the benefits and risks are not evenly distributed globally. Developed nations with advanced nuclear capabilities enjoy the energy security and low-carbon advantages of nuclear power. While many developing countries face barriers to accessing this technology. Moreover, the environmental and health impacts of uranium mining predominantly affect less affluent regions. Highlighting issues of energy equity and environmental justice.

spacer

In conclusion, while nuclear energy offers a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels, its dangers—ranging from the catastrophic potential of nuclear accidents to the enduring challenge of managing nuclear waste. And the health risks associated with radiation exposure—cannot be overlooked. The nuclear industry must continuously strive for higher safety standards, and developing new technologies. Such as small modular reactors, may offer safer alternatives. However, the debate on the role of nuclear energy in combating climate change and meeting global energy needs continues. Weighing its benefits against its risks. 

There has been no solution found for nuclear waste since the first nuclear reactor was created.  You dragged us into the ‘ATOMIC AGE’ over one hundred years ago.  If you have not found a solution to the nuclear waste problem by now it is likely that there is no solution.  Yet, you continue to creat more and more nuclear waste.  You wonder why we are not behind you??  You are madmen!

As we progress further into the complexities of nuclear energy, it’s crucial to examine the implications for national security. The evolving landscape of nuclear technology, and the broader environmental considerations that frame the debate on nuclear energy’s role in our future.

spacer

Five Things the “Nuclear Bros” Don’t Want You to Know About Small Modular Reactors

April 30, 2024 | 2:40 pm

Nuclear Regulatory Comission

Edwin Lyman

Director, Nuclear Power Safety

Even casual followers of energy and climate issues have probably heard about the alleged wonders of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). This is due in no small part to the “nuclear bros”: an active and seemingly tireless group of nuclear power advocates who dominate social media discussions on energy by promoting SMRs and other “advanced” nuclear technologies as the only real solution for the climate crisis. But as I showed in my 2013 and 2021 reports, the hype surrounding SMRs is way overblown, and my conclusions remain valid today.

Unfortunately, much of this SMR happy talk is rooted in misinformation, which always brings me back to the same question: If the nuclear bros have such a great SMR story to tell, why do they have to exaggerate so much?

What are SMRs?

SMRs are nuclear reactors that are “small” (defined as 300 megawatts of electrical power or less), can be largely assembled in a centralized facility, and would be installed in a modular fashion at power generation sites. Some proposed SMRs are so tiny (20 megawatts or less) that they are called “micro” reactors. SMRs are distinct from today’s conventional nuclear plants, which are typically around 1,000 megawatts and were largely custom-built. Some SMR designs, such as NuScale, are modified versions of operating water-cooled reactors, while others are radically different designs that use coolants other than water, such as liquid sodium, helium gas, or even molten salts.

To date, however, theoretical interest in SMRs has not translated into many actual reactor orders. The only SMR currently under construction is in China. And in the United States, only one company—TerraPower, founded by Microsoft’s Bill Gates—has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a permit to build a power reactor (but at 345 megawatts, it technically isn’t even an SMR).

The nuclear industry has pinned its hopes on SMRs primarily because some recent large reactor projects, including Vogtle units 3 and 4 in the state of Georgia, have taken far longer to build and cost far more than originally projected. The failure of these projects to come in on time and under budget undermines arguments that modern nuclear power plants can overcome the problems that have plagued the nuclear industry in the past.

Developers in the industry and the US Department of Energy say that SMRs can be less costly and quicker to build than large reactors and that their modular nature makes it easier to balance power supply and demand. They also argue that reactors in a variety of sizes would be useful for a range of applications beyond grid-scale electrical power, including providing process heat to industrial plants and power to data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations, petrochemical production, and even electrical vehicle charging stations.

Here are five facts about SMRs that the nuclear industry and the “nuclear bros” who push its message don’t want you, the public, to know.

1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.

In theory, small reactors should have lower capital costs and construction times than large reactors of similar design so that utilities (or other users) can get financing more cheaply and deploy them more flexibly. But that doesn’t mean small reactors will be more economical than large ones. In fact, the opposite usually will be true. What matters more when comparing the economics of different power sources is the cost to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity, and that depends on the capital cost per kilowatt of generating capacity, as well as the costs of operations, maintenance, fuel, and other factors.

According to the economies of scale principle, smaller reactors will in general produce more expensive electricity than larger ones. For example, the now-cancelled project by NuScale to build a 460-megawatt, 6-unit SMR in Idaho was estimated to cost over $20,000 per kilowatt, which is greater than the actual cost of the Vogtle large reactor project of over $15,000 per kilowatt. This cost penalty can be offset only by radical changes in the way reactors are designed, built, and operated.

For example, SMR developers claim they can slash capital cost per kilowatt by achieving efficiency through the mass production of identical units in factories. However, studies find that such cost reductions typically would not exceed about 30%. In addition, dozens of units would have to be produced before manufacturers could learn how to make their processes more efficient and achieve those capital cost reductions, meaning that the first reactors of a given design will be unavoidably expensive and will require large government or ratepayer subsidies to get built. Getting past this obstacle has proven to be one of the main impediments to SMR deployment.

Another way that SMR developers try to reduce capital cost is by reducing or eliminating many of the safety features required for operating reactors that provide multiple layers of protection, such as a robust, reinforced concrete containment structure, motor-driven emergency pumps, and rigorous quality assurance standards for backup safety equipment such as power supplies. But these changes so far haven’t had much of an impact on the overall cost—just look at NuScale.

In addition to capital cost, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs will also have to be significantly reduced to improve the competitiveness of SMRs. However, some operating expenses, such as the security needed to protect against terrorist attacks, would not normally be sensitive to reactor size. The relative contribution of O&M and fuel costs to the price per megawatt-hour varies a lot among designs and project details, but could be 50% or more, depending on factors such as interest rates that influence the total capital cost.

Economies of scale considerations have already led some SMR vendors, such as NuScale and Holtec, to roughly double module sizes from their original designs. The Oklo, Inc. Aurora microreactor has increased from 1.5 MW to 15 MW and may even go to 50 MW. And the General Electric-Hitachi BWRX-300 and Westinghouse AP300 are both starting out at the upper limit of what is considered an SMR.

Overall, these changes might be sufficient to make some SMRs cost-competitive with large reactors, but they would still have a long way to go to compete with renewable technologies. The levelized cost of electricity for the now-cancelled NuScale project was estimated at around $119 per megawatt-hour (without federal subsidies), whereas land-based wind and utility-scale solar now cost below $40/MWh.

Microreactors, however, are likely to remain expensive under any realistic scenario, with projected levelized electricity costs two to three times that of larger SMRs.

2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.

Because of their size, you might think that small nuclear reactors pose lower risks to public health and the environment than large reactors. After all, the amount of radioactive material in the core and available to be released in an accident is smaller. And smaller reactors produce heat at lower rates than large reactors, which could make them easier to cool during an accident, perhaps even by passive means—that is, without the need for electrically powered coolant pumps or operator actions.

However, the so-called passive safety features that SMR proponents like to cite may not always work, especially during extreme events such as large earthquakes, major flooding, or wildfires that can degrade the environmental conditions under which they are designed to operate. And in some cases, passive features can actually make accidents worse: for example, the NRC’s review of the NuScale design revealed that passive emergency systems could deplete cooling water of boron, which is needed to keep the reactor safely shut down after an accident.

In any event, regulators are loosening safety and security requirements for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any safety benefits from passive features. For example, the NRC has approved rules and procedures in recent years that provide regulatory pathways for exempting new reactors, including SMRs, from many of the protective measures that it requires for operating plants, such as a physical containment structure, an offsite emergency evacuation plan, and an exclusion zone that separates the plant from densely populated areas. It is also considering further changes that could allow SMRs to reduce the numbers of armed security personnel to protect them from terrorist attacks and highly trained operators to run them. Reducing security at SMRs is particularly worrisome, because even the safest reactors could effectively become dangerous radiological weapons if they are sabotaged by skilled attackers. Even passive safety mechanisms could be deliberately disabled.

Considering the cumulative impact of all these changes, SMRs could be as—or even more— dangerous than large reactors. For example, if a containment structure at a large reactor reliably prevented 90% of the radioactive material from being released from the core of the reactor during a meltdown, then a reactor 5 times smaller without such a containment structure could conceivably release more radioactive material into the environment, even though the total amount of material in the core would be smaller. And if the SMR were located closer to populated areas with no offsite emergency planning, more people could be exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation.

But even if one could show that the overall safety risk of a small reactor was lower than that of a large reactor, that still wouldn’t automatically imply the overall risk per unit of electricity that it generates is lower, since smaller plants generate less electricity. If an accident caused a 250-megawatt SMR to release only 25% of the radioactive material that a 1,000-megawatt plant would release, the ratio of risk to benefit would be the same. And a site with four such reactors could have four times the annual risk of a single unit, or an even greater risk if an accident at one reactor were to damage the others, as happened during the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan.

UCS needs dedicated science defenders like you behind us.

3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.

The industry makes highly misleading claims that certain SMRs will reduce the intractable problem of long-lived radioactive waste management by generating less waste, or even by “recycling” their own wastes or those generated by other reactors.

First, it’s necessary to define what “less” waste really means. In terms of the quantity of highly radioactive isotopes that result when atomic nuclei are fissioned and release energy, small reactors will produce just as much as large reactors per unit of heat generated. (Non-light-water reactors that more efficiently convert heat to electricity than light-water reactors will produce somewhat smaller quantities of fission products per unit of electricity generated—perhaps 10 to 30%—but this is a relatively small effect in the scheme of things.) And for reactors with denser fuels, the volume and mass of the spent fuel generated may be smaller, but the concentration of fission products in the spent fuel, and the heat generated by the decay products—factors that really matter to safety—will be proportionately greater.

Therefore, entities that hope to acquire SMRs, like data centers that lack the necessary waste infrastructure, will have to safely manage the storage of significant quantities of spent nuclear fuel on site for the long term, just like any other nuclear power plant does. Claims by vendors such as Westinghouse that they will take away the reactors after the fuel is no longer usable are simply not credible, as there are no realistic prospects for licensing centralized sites where the used reactors could be taken for the foreseeable future. Any community with an SMR will have to plan to be a de facto long-term nuclear waste disposal site.

4. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.

Despite the claims of developers, it is very unlikely that any reasonably foreseeable SMR design would be able to safely operate without reliable access to electricity from the grid to power coolant pumps and other vital safety systems. Just like today’s nuclear plants, SMRs will be vulnerable to extreme weather events or other disasters that could cause a loss of offsite power and force them to shut down. In such situations a user such as a data center operator would have to provide backup power, likely from diesel generators, for both the data center AND the reactor. And since there is virtually no experience with operating SMRs worldwide, it is highly doubtful that the novel designs being pitched now would be highly reliable right out of the box and require little monitoring and maintenance.

It very likely will take decades of operating experience for any new reactor design to achieve the level of reliability characteristic of the operating light-water reactor fleet. Premature deployment based on unrealistic performance expectations could prove extremely costly for any company that wants to experiment with SMRs.

5. SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

Some advocates misleadingly claim that SMRs are more efficient than large ones because they use less fuel. In terms of the amount of heat generated, the amount of uranium fuel that must undergo nuclear fission is the same whether a reactor is large or small. And although reactors that use coolants other than water typically operate at higher temperatures, which can increase the efficiency of conversion of heat to electricity, this is not a big enough effect to outweigh other factors that decrease efficiency of fuel use.

Some SMRs designs require a type of uranium fuel called “high-assay low enriched uranium (HALEU),” which contains higher concentrations of the isotope uranium-235 than conventional light-water reactor fuel. Although this reduces the total mass of fuel the reactor needs, that doesn’t mean it uses less uranium nor results in less waste from “front-end” mining and milling activities: in fact, the opposite is more likely to be true.

One reason for this is that HALEU production requires a relatively large amount of natural uranium to be fed into the enrichment process that increases the uranium-235 concentration. For example, the TerraPower Natrium reactor which would use HALEU enriched to around 19% uranium-235, will require 2.5 to 3 times as much natural uranium to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity than a light-water reactor. Smaller reactors, such as the 15-megawatt Oklo Aurora, are even more inefficient. Improving the efficiency of these reactors can occur only with significant advances in fuel performance, which could take decades of development to achieve.

Reactors that use uranium inefficiently have disproportionate impacts on the environment from polluting uranium mining and processing activities. They also are less effective in mitigating carbon emissions, because uranium mining and milling are relatively carbon-intensive activities compared to other parts of the uranium fuel cycle.

SMRs may have a role to play in our energy future, but only if they are sufficiently safe and secure. For that to happen, it is essential to have a realistic understanding of their costs and risks. By painting an overly rosy picture of these technologies with often misleading information, the nuclear bros are distracting attention from the need to confront the many challenges that must be resolved to make SMRs a reality—and ultimately doing a disservice to their cause.

Number of “Artificial Sun” Fusion Reactors Under Construction or Active

As of 2026, there is no single global count of all “artificial sun” fusion reactors — because the term refers to different types of devices (e.g., tokamaks, stellarators) and projects at varying stages — but we can identify the major ones currently under construction or in operation.

1. ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)

• Status: Under construction in Saint-Paul-lès-Durance, France.
• Type: Tokamak (doughnut-shaped fusion device).
• Purpose: Scientific research and engineering demonstration of fusion, not electricity generation.
• Timeline: First plasma expected 2033–2034 Wikipedia+1.
• Partners: China, EU, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, U.S., plus Switzerland (since 2026) ITER.

2. China’s Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST)

• Status: Under construction in Hefei, Anhui province, China.
• Type: Tokamak (“artificial sun”).
• Purpose: To achieve a burning plasma with deuterium–tritium fuel, aiming to produce more energy than consumed.
• Timeline: Scheduled completion by end of 2027 Sixth Tone.

3. Other major fusion projects

• KSTAR (Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research) – South Korea, operational since 2003, but still a key research device.
• JT-60SA (Japan) – Operational tokamak, part of the ITER collaboration.
• Wendelstein 7-X (Germany) – Operational stellarator, not a tokamak but also an “artificial sun” in concept.
• SPARC (MIT/CFS) – Under construction in the U.S., aiming for net energy gain.
• DEMO (EU/UK) – Planned successor to ITER, not yet under construction.

Summary:
If we focus only on major, publicly funded “artificial sun” fusion projects (tokamaks and stellarators), there are at least two large-scale ones under construction or active in 2026:

• ITER (construction phase, first plasma ~2033–2034)
• BEST (construction, completion ~2027)

Smaller research tokamaks and stellarators (like KSTAR, JT-60SA, Wendelstein 7-X) are also active, but they are not full-scale power reactor prototypes.

Answer: As of 2026, there are two major “artificial sun” fusion reactors — ITER and BEST — that are either under construction or in active operation, with others in the research phase.

SPACER

TOKAMAK	STELLARATOR

SPACER

Current Status of Tokamaks and Stellarators

As of the latest IAEA Fusion Facility Database (FFDB) and industry assessments, there are about 50–55 operating tokamaks worldwide, with around 13 under construction and several more in planning stages LinkedIn+1. This includes both public and private facilities, covering experimental research and next‑generation designs.

Tokamaks

• Operating: Over 50 tokamaks are currently in operation, including major international projects like ITER (under construction but not yet operational) and national facilities such as DIII‑D (USA), EAST (China), KSTAR (Korea), ASDEX Upgrade (Germany), and JET (UK, now decommissioned) Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik.
• Under construction: About 13 tokamaks are in active construction, including  SUNIST‑2 (Russia),   HH70 (China),   SMART (USA), and STOR‑M (Canada) LinkedIn.
• Next‑generation: Around 32 next‑generation tokamaks are in various stages of development, with China and the USA leading in planned and under‑construction projects LinkedIn.

Stellarators/Heliotrons

The FFDB and IAEA data show that stellarators and heliotrons are a smaller fraction of the total fusion facilities compared to tokamaks. While the exact number of active stellarators is not explicitly tabulated in the provided results, the IAEA’s global survey indicates that stellarators/heliotrons are present in several countries (e.g., Wendelstein 7‑X in Germany, LHD in Japan, LTX in the USA, T‑10 in Russia) Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik.
In total, there are dozens of stellarators/heliotrons worldwide, but they are fewer in number than tokamaks, and many are smaller or in earlier stages of operation.

Summary Table (as of 2026)

Device Type	Operating	Under Construction	Notes
Tokamaks	~50–55	~13	Includes ITER (under construction)
Stellarators/Heliotrons	~10–15	~2–3	Smaller in number, e.g., W7‑X, LHD, LTX

Key points:

• Tokamaks dominate the global fusion landscape, with most active and under‑construction projects.
• Stellarators/heliotrons are fewer but important for exploring alternative magnetic confinement designs.
• The IAEA FFDB is the authoritative source for up‑to‑date counts and technical details nucleus-new.iaea.org.

Understanding Magnetic Confinement Magnetic confinement is a method used in controlled nuclear fusion to contain extremely hot plasma — a state of matter where atoms are ionized into positively charged nuclei and free electrons — without letting it touch the reactor walls modern-physics.org+1. It works by applying strong magnetic fields that guide and trap charged particles in a defined space, allowing them to reach the temperatures (often over 100 million degrees Celsius) and densities needed for fusion modern-physics.org+1. How It Works Charged particles in a magnetic field experience a Lorentz force that bends their motion into circular or helical paths, preventing them from hitting the walls HyperPhysics. The magnetic field lines act like invisible “bottles” that confine the plasma, keeping it isolated from the reactor structure. This is essential because direct contact with solid materials would cool the plasma instantly. Main Device Types Tokamak – A toroidal (doughnut-shaped) device using magnetic fields to confine and shape the plasma. It is the most widely studied and used configuration, with examples like ITER aiming to demonstrate net energy gain modern-physics.org+1. Stellarator – Uses a complex arrangement of magnetic coils to create twisted magnetic fields that confine the plasma without needing a current in the plasma itself modern-physics.org+1. Fusion Fuel and Reaction Most research uses deuterium (D) and tritium (T) isotopes of hydrogen. The fusion reaction is: ²H + ³H → ⁴He + n + energy This releases a helium nucleus, a neutron, and a large amount of energy modern-physics.org+1. Why It Matters Magnetic confinement is one of two main approaches to fusion energy (the other being inertial confinement). It offers the potential for clean, safe, and virtually limitless energy without the risk of runaway chain reactions Nucleus. Advancements include stronger magnets, better plasma heating (e.g., neutral beam injection), and improved diagnostics to extend confinement time and density modern-physics.org. Challenges Maintaining the Lawson criterion — a balance of plasma density, temperature, and confinement time — is difficult. Plasma instabilities and energy losses remain engineering and physics hurdles modern-physics.org+1. In short, magnetic confinement is the cornerstone of many fusion reactor designs, using magnetic fields to trap and control superhot plasma for the purpose of generating energy through nuclear fusion.

If you need the exact, country‑by‑country breakdown, the IAEA’s Fusion Facility Database provides a searchable, updated list of all active and under‑construction fusion devices, including tokamaks and stellarators nucleus-new.iaea.org.

spacer

Dangers and Risks of Tokamaks and Stellarators

While tokamaks and stellarators are designed to harness fusion energy — often called “artificial suns” — they are not without significant operational, engineering, and safety challenges.

Tokamak Risks

• Current-driven disruptions: Tokamaks rely on an internal plasma current to generate part of their magnetic field. This current can trigger large-scale instabilities called disruptions, which suddenly dump massive energy into the reactor walls, risking severe damage to internal components www.bohrium.com.
• Pulsed operation: Most tokamaks operate in short pulses, requiring complex energy storage systems to sustain plasma for longer periods. This limits steady-state power generation and increases engineering complexity www.bohrium.com.
• High neutron flux: Both devices produce high-energy neutrons from deuterium–tritium fusion. These neutrons can activate reactor materials, making them radioactive and requiring careful handling and disposal International Atomic Energy Agency.
• Magnetic quenches: Sudden loss of superconducting magnet performance can cause rapid heating and mechanical stress, potentially damaging coils and vacuum systems Department of Energy.
• Plasma turbulence and instabilities: Tokamaks are prone to MHD instabilities and edge-localized modes (ELMs), which can erode plasma-facing components and limit operational lifetime AIP Publishing.

Stellarator Risks

• Complex coil engineering: Stellarators use externally shaped, helical coils to create the magnetic field without a plasma current. This requires extremely precise manufacturing of “spaghetti-like” coils, which is costly and technically challenging Department of Energy.
• Lower plasma control flexibility: While stellarators are inherently stable against current-driven disruptions, their complex geometry makes real-time plasma control more difficult compared to tokamaks www.bohrium.com.
• Neutron activation and tritium handling: Like tokamaks, stellarators produce high neutron fluxes and require tritium fuel breeding and handling, posing radiological and safety concerns International Atomic Energy Agency.
• Higher construction and maintenance costs: The intricate coil design and need for high-precision assembly make stellarators more expensive to build and maintain than tokamaks Department of Energy.

Common Risks for Both

• Radiation hazards: Both devices operate with high-energy neutrons and charged particles, requiring robust shielding and remote handling for maintenance International Atomic Energy Agency.
• Tritium inventory: Tritium is radioactive and must be contained to prevent environmental release; leaks could pose health and safety risks International Atomic Energy Agency.
• High magnetic fields: Strong magnetic fields can pose risks to personnel and equipment if not properly managed.
• Thermal and mechanical stress: Plasma-facing components endure extreme heat and particle bombardment, leading to erosion and material fatigue.

In summary: Tokamaks face disruption risks and pulsed operation limitations, while stellarators have complex engineering and control challenges. Both share neutron activation, tritium handling, and high-magnetic-field hazards. Advances in materials, magnet technology, and plasma control aim to mitigate these dangers, but they remain central to the safety and design considerations for fusion “artificial suns.”

spacer
How much heat do tokamaks and stellarators put into our atmosphere?

Tokamaks and stellarators do not put any significant heat into the Earth’s atmosphere during normal operation. These are experimental fusion devices designed to confine extremely hot plasma (tens to hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius) using powerful magnetic fields, but they are fully contained within vacuum vessels and do not release energy into the surrounding environment International Atomic Energy Agency+1.

Why no heat escapes into the atmosphere

• Magnetic confinement: The plasma is held inside a vacuum chamber by magnetic fields. No particles or radiation escape in a way that would heat the atmosphere.
• No direct energy release: The heat in the plasma is contained; the only way energy leaves the device is through controlled exhaust systems (e.g., divertor tiles, cooling water loops) that remove heat from the reactor structure, not from the atmosphere International Atomic Energy Agency.   ok, so to where is this heat removed?
• No atmospheric contact: The devices are located in controlled facilities, shielded from the environment, and operate under vacuum to prevent plasma–air interactions.

What happens to the heat

• Internal heat removal: The heat from the plasma is transferred to the reactor’s cooling systems, which dissipate it as waste heat into the facility’s cooling infrastructure (e.g., cooling towers, water systems).  so, this is how the heat is dispersed into our environment.
• Minimal environmental impact: The waste heat is orders of magnitude smaller than the energy input and is managed locally, not released into the atmosphere in a way that affects global climate or weather.  I don’t buy that.  If the heat is released into the water or the air, it is effecting our Environment.

Summary

Tokamaks and stellarators do not emit heat into the atmosphere. Any heat they produce is contained within the device and removed via engineered cooling systems. Their environmental impact is limited to localized facility operations, not atmospheric heating International Atomic Energy Agency+1   I don’t buy that.  The reactor, located in Hefei in Anhui province, generated a steady loop of plasma for 1,066 seconds at 180million°F (100million°C) – seven times hotter than the sun’s core.  Nuclear fusion breakthrough: China’s ‘artificial sun’ reactor sets a new world record by generating a steady loop of plasma for 1,066 seconds – taking the world closer towards limitless clean energy | Daily Mail Online

Nuclear Waste from a Fission-Based “Artificial Sun” Facility

A fission-based fusion–fission hybrid or “artificial sun” facility would produce high-level radioactive waste similar to conventional nuclear fission reactors, but the volume and hazard profile depend on reactor design, fuel cycle, and waste management choices.

Typical waste generation

• High-level waste (HLW): The main hazard comes from spent nuclear fuel containing fission products (e.g., cesium‑137, strontium‑90) and transuranics (e.g., plutonium‑239).
• Annual HLW output: For a large fission reactor, this is about 25–30 metric tons of spent fuel per year shunwaste.com.
• Longevity: HLW remains hazardous for thousands to hundreds of thousands of years; plutonium‑239 has a half‑life of ~24,000 years NRC.
• Global inventory: As of 2023, there are about 400,000 metric tons of spent fuel worldwide shunwaste.com.

Waste types

• High-level waste (HLW): Spent fuel, fission products, transuranics.
• Intermediate-level waste (ILW): Contaminated reactor components, resins, and filters.
• Low-level waste (LLW): Protective clothing, tools, and other lightly contaminated materials shunwaste.com+1.

Comparison to fossil fuels

• Nuclear fission produces far less waste by volume than fossil fuel plants, but the waste is far more hazardous due to its radioactivity and long half-lives shunwaste.com+1.

Management and disposal

• HLW is stored initially in cooling pools or dry casks at reactor sites NRC.
• The internationally accepted long-term solution is deep geological disposal (e.g., Finland’s Onkalo repository) shunwaste.com+1.
• Reprocessing can reduce HLW volume by ~95% but creates other waste streams and raises proliferation concerns shunwaste.com.

Key takeaway
A fission-based “artificial sun” facility would generate tens of metric tons of high-level radioactive waste annually, with the same long-term hazard profile as conventional nuclear reactors. The total waste inventory would accumulate over decades, requiring secure, long-term disposal solutions. WHICH DO NOT EXIST AND LIKELY WILL NEVER BE FOUND!

spacer

Nuclear Fusion-Fission Hybrid Could Eliminate Nuclear Waste And Generate Usable Energy

Proposed nuclear waste destruction system would make waste into fuel

– By Linton Levy –

Physicists at The University of Texas at Austin have designed a new system that, when fully developed, would use fusion to eliminate most of the transuranic waste produced by nuclear power plants.  The invention could help combat global warming by making nuclear power cleaner and thus a more viable replacement of carbon-heavy energy sources, such as coal.

The idea behind the compact Fusion-Fission Hybrid is that fusion can be used to burn nuclear waste, producing energy and getting rid of much of the long-lived waste generated by nuclear reactors.

“We have created a way to use fusion to relatively inexpensively destroy the waste from nuclear fission,” says Mike Kotschenreuther, senior research scientist with the Institute for Fusion Studies (IFS) and Department of Physics. “Our waste destruction system, we believe, will allow nuclear power—a low carbon source of energy—to take its place in helping us combat global warming.”

Toxic nuclear waste is stored at sites around the U.S. Debate surrounds the construction of a large-scale geological storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which many maintain is costly and dangerous. The storage capacity of Yucca Mountain, which is not expected to open until 2020, is set at 77,000 tons. The amount of nuclear waste generated by the U.S. will exceed this amount by 2010.

The physicists’ new invention could drastically decrease the need for any additional or expanded geological repositories.

“Most people cite nuclear waste as the main reason they oppose nuclear fission as a source of power,” says Swadesh Mahajan, senior research scientist.

The scientists propose destroying the waste using a fusion-fission hybrid reactor, the centerpiece of which is a high power Compact Fusion Neutron Source (CFNS) made possible by a crucial invention.
The CFNS would provide abundant neutrons through fusion to a surrounding fission blanket that uses transuranic waste as nuclear fuel. The fusion-produced neutrons augment the fission reaction, imparting efficiency and stability to the waste incineration process.

Kotschenreuther, Mahajan and Prashant Valanju, of the IFS, and Erich Schneider of the Department of Mechanical Engineering report their new system for nuclear waste destruction in the journal Fusion Engineering and Design.

There are more than 100 fission reactors, called “light water reactors” (LWRs), producing power in the United States. The nuclear waste from these reactors is stored and not reprocessed. (Some other countries, such as France and Japan, do reprocess the waste.)

The scientists’ waste destruction system would work in two major steps.

First, 75 percent of the original reactor waste is destroyed in standard, relatively inexpensive LWRs. This step produces energy, but it does not destroy highly radiotoxic, transuranic, long-lived waste, what the scientists call “sludge.”

In the second step, the sludge would be destroyed in a CFNS-based fusion-fission hybrid. The hybrid’s potential lies in its ability to burn this hazardous sludge, which cannot be stably burnt in conventional systems.
“To burn this really hard to burn sludge, you really need to hit it with a sledgehammer, and that’s what we have invented here,” says Kotschenreuther.

One hybrid would be needed to destroy the waste produced by 10 to 15 LWRs.
The process would ultimately reduce the transuranic waste from the original fission reactors by up to 99 percent. Burning that waste also produces energy.

The CFNS is designed to be no larger than a small room, and much fewer of the devices would be needed compared to other schemes that are being investigated for similar processes. In combination with the substantial decrease in the need for geological storage, the CFNS-enabled waste-destruction system would be much cheaper and faster than other routes, say the scientists.

The CFNS is based on a tokamak, which is a machine with a “magnetic bottle” that is highly successful in confining high temperature (more than 100 million degrees Celsius) fusion plasmas for sufficiently long times.
The crucial invention that would pave the way for a CFNS is called the Super X Divertor. The Super X Divertor is designed to handle the enormous heat and particle fluxes peculiar to compact devices; it would enable the CFNS to safely produce large amounts of neutrons without destroying the system.

“The intense heat generated in a nuclear fusion device can literally destroy the walls of the machine,” says research scientist Valanju, “and that is the thing that has been holding back a highly compact source of nuclear fusion.“

Valanju says a fusion-fission hybrid reactor has been an idea in the physics community for a long time.
“It’s always been known that fusion is good at producing neutrons and fission is good at making energy,” he says. “Now, we have shown that we can get fusion to produce a lot of neutrons in a small space.“

Producing an abundant and clean source of “pure fusion energy” continues to be a goal for fusion researchers. But the physicists say that harnessing the other product of fusion—neutrons—can be achieved in the near term.
In moving their hybrid from concept into production, the scientists hope to make nuclear energy a more viable alternative to coal and oil while waiting for renewables like solar and pure fusion to ramp up.

“The hybrid we designed should be viewed as a bridge technology,” says Mahajan. “Through the hybrid, we can bring fusion via neutrons to the service of the energy sector today. We can hopefully make a major contribution to the carbon-free mix dictated by the 2050 time scale set by global warming scientists.”

The scientists say their Super X Divertor invention has already gained acceptance in the fusion community. Several groups are considering implemented the Super X Divertor on their machines, including the MAST tokamak in the United Kingdom, and the DIIID (General Atomics) and NSTX (Princeton University) in the U.S. Next steps will include performing extended simulations, transforming the concept into an engineering project, and seeking funding for building a prototype.

For more information, contact: Lee Clippard, College of Natural Sciences, 512-232-0675; Dr. Mike Kotschenreuther, 512-471-1322; Dr. Swadesh Mahajan, 512-471-4376.
spacer

Negative Effects, Drawbacks, and Dangers of Nuclear Fusion–Fission Hybrids

Nuclear fusion–fission hybrid reactors combine the neutron-rich output of fusion with the power density of fission, aiming to produce more energy than pure fusion. While they promise to reduce long-lived waste and improve safety compared to fission alone, they also carry significant negative effects, drawbacks, and dangers.

1. Radiation and Waste Issues

• Tritium handling: Fusion hybrids using deuterium–tritium fuel require managing tritium, a radioactive isotope with a 12.3-year half-life. Tritium can permeate materials and contaminate systems if not contained in closed-loop fuel cycles  biologyinsights.com.
• Neutron activation: High-energy neutrons from fusion bombard reactor components, making them radioactive. This creates intermediate- and long-lived waste that still requires disposal, though less than fission waste MIT – Massachusetts Institute of Technology+1.
• Mixed waste streams: The hybrid design produces both fusion-related activated materials and fission products, complicating waste classification and disposal.

2. Safety and Accident Risks

• Fission chain reaction risk: While fusion itself cannot sustain a runaway chain reaction, the surrounding fission blanket can still undergo fission if neutron flux is high. Loss of control could lead to localized fission accidents MIT – Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Energy release potential: If the fission blanket overheats or melts, it could release radioactive materials, similar to (but potentially less severe than) fission reactor meltdowns.
• Plasma disruption: Failure of magnetic confinement or heating systems can cause sudden plasma quench, damaging components and releasing stored energy biologyinsights.com.

3. Technical and Engineering Challenges

• Materials degradation: Extreme neutron bombardment and heat loads can damage structural materials, requiring frequent replacement and increasing maintenance costs (plus disposal of contaminated materials) CompleteEra.
• Complexity: Integrating fusion and fission systems increases engineering complexity, raising the risk of unforeseen interactions or failures.
• Net energy gain hurdles: Current fusion designs still consume more energy than they produce; hybrids may inherit these inefficiencies, delaying commercial viability CompleteEra.

4. Environmental and Ethical Concerns

• Mitigation obstruction: Overreliance on fusion hybrids could delay necessary reductions in fossil fuel use and emissions, reinforcing climate change inaction RealClearScience+1.
• Resource use: While deuterium is abundant, tritium must be bred in the reactor or imported, raising supply chain and geopolitical risks.
• Environmental footprint: Construction, operation, and decommissioning of large hybrid plants have significant resource and energy demands.

5. Economic and Political Risks

• High capital costs: Building and maintaining hybrid reactors is expensive, with long development timelines.
• Regulatory uncertainty: Licensing frameworks for hybrid designs are still evolving, creating uncertainty for investors and operators.
• Public perception: Even with inherent safety advantages, public trust may be eroded by the perception of “nuclear” risk, especially if (or when) accidents occur.

In summary, fusion–fission hybrids offer potential benefits in energy output and waste reduction, but they also introduce new radiation hazards, fission-related accident risks, materials challenges, and complex environmental and ethical trade-offs. Careful design, robust safety systems, and transparent governance will be essential to mitigate these drawbacks.

spacer

The Real Risk of Nuclear Energy — Linked to Nuclear Weapons and War

Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons share five key overlaps that makes the risk of nuclear war more tangible for countries with nuclear power programs The Friday Times – Naya Daur:

1. Technical overlap

• Both require fissile materials — highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium — which are not found in nature.
• Nuclear power plants use low-enriched uranium; facilities for producing this can be modified to produce HEU for weapons.
• Plutonium is a byproduct of uranium-fueled reactors, and many countries have used reactor materials for weapons programs (e.g., India’s 1974 test used plutonium from a Canadian-supplied reactor) The Friday Times – Naya Daur.

2. Historical precedent

• Several states began with nuclear energy programs and later developed nuclear weapons, including India, Pakistan, and Iran.
• The U.S. and others used early reactor technology to produce plutonium for their first nuclear tests The Friday Times – Naya Daur.

3. Geographical overlap

• Countries with nuclear power plants are often also nuclear-armed or allied with nuclear powers.
• This proximity increases the risk of accidental escalation or diversion of programs toward weapons The Friday Times – Naya Daur.

4. Personnel and institutional overlap

• The same scientists, engineers, and institutions can work on both energy and weapons programs.
• In the U.S., for example, the Department of Energy oversees both nuclear power and weapons production The Friday Times – Naya Daur.

5. Strategic and political risk

• The existence of nuclear weapons remains a major global security concern. As of 2025, there are about 12,241 warheads worldwide, with Russia and the U.S. holding nearly 87% scienceinsights.org.
• Arms control agreements like New START are under strain, and regional conflicts (e.g., India–Pakistan) can lower nuclear thresholds for use scienceinsights.org+1.
• The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock is at its closest to midnight in decades, reflecting heightened risk scienceinsights.org+1.

Why this matters
For countries with nuclear energy, the intention to use the technology for weapons is not a technical impossibility — it is a matter of political will. This creates a dual-use dilemma: nuclear power can be a stepping stone to nuclear weapons, and the weapons themselves remain a persistent threat to global stability The Friday Times – Naya Daur.

In short: The “real risk” of nuclear energy is not just about accidents or meltdowns, but about the potential for dual-use programs to escalate into nuclear weapons capability, which in turn increases the likelihood of nuclear war in a volatile geopolitical environment.

The Unsolved Nuclear Problem: Waste That Lasts for Millennia

YouTube

The Geography Guy
782 views

spacer

North Korea Revises Constitution to Mandate Automatic Nuclear Retaliation if Leadership Is Attacked

THE MOUSE THAT ROARED

Published on May 10, 2026

 

SEOUL, South Korea — May 10, 2026 : North Korea has amended its constitution and nuclear policy framework to require an automatic and immediate nuclear strike if the country’s leadership or nuclear command system is incapacitated by a hostile attack, according to information disclosed by South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS).

The revisions were adopted during the first session of the 15th Supreme People’s Assembly held in Pyongyang in March 2026, following growing security concerns inside the North Korean leadership after recent developments in the Middle East.

Under the revised Article 3 of North Korea’s nuclear policy law, a nuclear strike must be launched automatically if the state’s command-and-control structure over nuclear forces is placed in danger by hostile military action. The amendment establishes a formal legal mechanism requiring retaliation even if direct leadership orders cannot be issued.

Expansion of Nuclear Response Doctrine

The revised constitutional language builds upon North Korea’s September 2022 nuclear forces law, which had already outlined conditions for nuclear weapons use, including retaliation during wartime or against attempts to remove the country’s leadership.

The March 2026 amendments elevate these provisions into constitutional doctrine ensuring a nuclear response if the country’s leadership structure is disrupted.

spacer

Meta is a multinational technology company focused on social media, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence, formerly known as Facebook. Meta Platforms, Inc., commonly known as Meta, is an American technology company headquartered in Menlo Park, California, founded by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 as Facebook while he was at Harvard University Wikipedia+1. The company rebranded as Meta in 2021 to reflect its strategic shift toward the metaverse, an interconnected digital ecosystem combining virtual and augmented reality technologies Wikipedia+1. Meta is considered part of Big Tech, alongside companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia Wikipedia.

spacer

SPACER
Meta Signs Multi-Gigawatt Nuclear Deals for AI Data Centers

By Bloomberg

Jan 09, 2026

(Bloomberg) — Meta Platforms Inc. is set to become one of the world’s biggest corporate buyers of nuclear power, striking a series of deals as technology companies rush to lock up electricity for the AI boom.

The agreements could end up totaling more than 6 gigawatts — that’s enough to power a city of about 5 million homes. The deals include purchasing electricity from three existing Vistra Corp. plants and support several small reactors that Sam Altman-backed Oklo Inc. and Bill Gates-backed TerraPower LLC are planning to build over the next decade.

Vistra shares were up as much as 16% on Friday in New York. Oklo was up as much as 19%. Meta gained as much as 0.9%.

The deals underscore Big Tech’s scramble to secure energy amid the intensifying battle for artificial intelligence dominance. US power usage is expected to climb at least 30% by 2030, with most of the new demand coming from data centers, according to energy consulting firm Grid Strategies. Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc. and Microsoft have all signed deals to tap power from nuclear reactors. Those plans have now been dwarfed by Meta’s efforts.

While Meta didn’t disclose the value of the contracts, agreements of this size can easily represent billions of dollars in total revenue for electricity generators. The new deals follow a separate June agreement to get energy from a Constellation Energy Corp. nuclear site.

Urvi Parekh, Meta’s head of global energy, said that the agreements announced Friday seek to address concerns about the shuttering of existing nuclear power plants, and reflect the need for early investment to spur new nuclear power.

“There isn’t a one size fits all approach that’s gonna get us to where the US needs to go in order for nuclear to be a material part of the energy mix,” Parekh said in an interview, noting that the company remains committed to “low-carbon energy.”

While surging US power demand for data centers has helped revive appetite for nuclear energy, hyperscalers that long pledged to go green have recently considered or pursued deals with natural gas-fired plants — generators that are usually much easier and swifter to build. Nuclear projects often take a decade to develop and build, whereas data centers can be operational far quicker, creating a more urgent need for energy.

Explainer: How the Data Center Boom Tests Grids, Capital Markets

In 2024, Microsoft Corp. and Brookfield Asset Management’s green energy arm signed the biggest corporate clean-energy purchase agreement ever announced, involving more than 10.5 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity. That deal was estimated at the time to be worth as much as $17 billion.

Building new nuclear capacity can cost about $13 per watt for conventional reactors, and up to $24 per watt for the new, advanced technologies that companies like Oklo and TerraPower are developing according to BloombergNEF. At the high end, 6 gigawatts of new advanced nuclear would require more than $120 billion in capital costs.

And for Meta, buying that power could cost from $141 to $220 per megawatt hour for nuclear energy, compared to about $50 to $60 for gas, wind or solar, according to Rob Barnett, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence.

“That’s a pretty hefty number,” Barnett said in an interview. However, tech companies are willing to pay it because nuclear offers several advantages. First, it runs around the clock, unlike renewables. And the fuel costs are fairly stable, unlike gas, which can vary significantly depending on global politics and other issues. And finally, using carbon-free power will help Meta meet its green ambitions, which remains important despite recent shifts that have made it less pressing for some companies.

“While other sectors of the economy are backing away from this, large tech companies are still talking about it,” Barnett said.

Meta may be paying at least $100 per megawatt-hour for the electricity, a combined estimate that includes all three of the deals, according to a research note from Jefferies LLC Friday.

Meta’s new deals follow Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg’s repeated pledges to spend hundreds of billions of dollars through the end of the decade on AI and the infrastructure needed to support it. His most significant infrastructure projects include “Prometheus,” a 1-gigawatt data center cluster in New Albany, Ohio, which is expected to come online this year, and “Hyperion,” a rural Louisiana-based project that may scale to 5 gigawatts and come online in a couple more years.

spacer

Prometheus is a Titan known as the benefactor of humanity, who defied Zeus by giving fire and knowledge to mankind. Origins and Family Prometheus was a Titan, the son of Iapetus and the Oceanid Clymene, and brother to Epimetheus, Atlas, and Menoetius Wikipedia+2. His name is commonly interpreted as “Forethinker,” highlighting his intelligence and foresight, while his brother Epimetheus means “Afterthinker,” symbolizing hindsight Greek Mythology+1. Prometheus played a crucial role during the Titanomachy, initially siding with Zeus and the Olympians, which allowed him to escape the harsh punishments that befell other Titans Greek Mythology+1. Role as Benefactor of Humanity Prometheus is celebrated for his cleverness and as a champion of mankind. In some myths, he is credited with creating humans from clay Wikipedia+1. Observing humanity’s vulnerability, he stole fire from the gods and gave it to humans, hidden in a hollow fennel stalk, enabling them to develop technology, arts, and civilization Wikipedia+2. He also taught humans various skills, including metalwork and other arts, making him a symbol of human progress and ingenuity Encyclopedia Britannica+1. Conflict with Zeus and Punishment Prometheus’ defiance angered Zeus, who sought to punish both him and humanity. Zeus created Pandora, the first woman, whose jar released evils into the world, leaving only hope inside Encyclopedia Britannica. Prometheus himself was bound to a rock in the Caucasus Mountains, where an eagle perpetually ate his regenerating liver, symbolizing eternal torment for his transgression Wikipedia+2. Eventually, he was freed by Heracles, reconciling with Zeus Wikipedia+1. Cultural and Literary Significance Prometheus became a symbol of human striving, intelligence, and the risks of overreaching. In literature, he is depicted as the bringer of fire and civilization, notably in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, where he is portrayed as humanity’s preserver Encyclopedia Britannica+1. During the Romantic era, he inspired the archetype of the lone genius, exemplified by Mary Shelley’s subtitle The Modern Prometheus for Frankenstein Wikipedia. Summary Prometheus embodies foresight, intelligence, and the enduring struggle to empower humanity. His myths explore themes of rebellion, punishment, and the transformative power of knowledge, making him one of the most enduring figures in Greek mythology Wikipedia+2. spacer Jeff Bezos describes his $38B startup Prometheus for the … – GeekWire May 20, 2026 · Project Prometheus launched with $6.2 billion in funding, led by Bezos and Vik Bajaj, a former Google X executive. “It’s a little premature for me to talk about it, but we are not — we have nothing to do with robotics,” Bezos said. He went on to offer the most detailed public description yet of the secretive startup, for which he is co-CEO: Prometheus is developing an “artificial general engineer,” he said, building next-generation tools for designing physical objects. The company has hired roughly 120 employees from firms including OpenAI, DeepMind, Meta and XAI, and operates out of San Francisco, London and Zurich. Bezos called it “a very, very modern version” of CAD, or computer-aided design, adding that he is “really oversimplifying here,” and reiterating that it’s premature for him to give much detail.

Hyperion in Greek Mythology In Greek mythology, Hyperion (Greek: Ὑπερίων, Hyperiōn) was one of the Twelve Titans, the eldest generation of gods, born from Uranus (Sky) and Gaia (Earth) Wikipedia+1. His name means “the one above” or “he who goes above,” reflecting his association with celestial light, wisdom, and watchfulness Wikipedia+1. Role and Symbolism Hyperion is often linked to heavenly observation and the principle of illumination. He is considered a Titan of light, embodying the divine radiance that preceded the Olympians www.historyandmyths.com. In some traditions, he was even called the first astronomer, credited with studying and understanding astronomical phenomena Mythopedia. He was one of the Four Pillars that held the heavens and earth apart, with his daughter Eos (Dawn) as the pillar of the east Greek Mythology. Family Parents: Uranus and Gaia Wikipedia+1 Consort: His sister Theia Wikipedia+1 Children: Helios – the Sun    /  Selene – the Moon   /  Eos – the Dawn Wikipedia+1 In early texts, Hyperion and Helios were sometimes identified, but in later works like Hesiod’s Theogony and Homer’s Odyssey, they are treated as distinct: Hyperion as the father, Helios as the personification of the sun Wikipedia. Mythological Role Hyperion is not a central figure in major myth cycles, but his importance lies in his cosmic function. He and his siblings participated in the Titanomachy (the war between the Titans and the Olympians), siding with Cronus and the Titans against Uranus Mythopedia+1. After Zeus’ victory, the Titans were imprisoned in Tartarus, and Hyperion was among them greekmythologynotes.com. Cultural Legacy Literature: John Keats’ unfinished epic Hyperion draws on the Titan’s name and mythological associations Wikipedia. Science: Saturn’s moon Hyperion is named after the Titan greekmythologynotes.com. Symbolism: Represents vision, enlightenment, and the dawn of cosmic awareness www.historyandmyths.com. In essence, Hyperion is a primordial god of light and observation, whose myth reflects the ancient Greek understanding of the heavens and the origins of celestial order.

spacer

The Hyperion project, expected to be Meta’s largest AI-focused data center, is going to be powered by at least three natural gas plants. Its utility, Entergy Corp., has applied to connect more natural gas generation to the grid as Meta seeks to scale the project.

The nuclear deals announced Friday will also help to power the Ohio-based Prometheus project. Meta declined to comment on the financial terms of the agreements.

“If we are unable to generate more electricity, that could hurt the ability of AI to grow faster,” Parekh said. “The big picture is about ensuring that we have more solutions as AI continues to grow instead of having constraints on what options and what technologies can be added to the grid.”

Under the agreement with Vistra, Meta will buy energy from the Davis-Besse and Perry reactors in Ohio, including more than 2.1 gigawatts of operating generation. It will also get an additional 433 megawatts of energy from improvements that are planned to boost output from those two plants and from its Beaver Valley facility in Pennsylvania.

The Vistra nuclear plants will continue to supply the largest US grid operated by PJM Interconnection LLC, which serves more than 67 million people from the Midwest to the mid-Atlantic.

In a separate deal with Oklo, Meta will get up to 1.2 gigawatts of capacity from reactors that Oklo is planning to build in Ohio, with the first going into service as early as 2030. Oklo is developing a 75-megawatt reactor, though it still needs approval from federal regulators. The agreement with Meta also includes a prepayment, primarily to help Oklo procure fuel.

Meta has also agreed to support development of two reactors by TerraPower capable of generating up to 690 megawatts with delivery as early as 2032. Meta also secured the rights for energy from up to six other future reactor projects that together would total 2.1 gigawatts of power.

Zuckerberg last year told investors that he sees more risk posed to his company by under-spending on AI infrastructure than he does by overspending on it. His strategy is to “aggressively front-load building capacity” in preparation for a landmark moment where Meta reaches its goal of “superintelligence,” a term describing AI that outperforms humans at many tasks.

“It’s clear that nuclear energy has to be a big part of meeting the demand for power from AI,” TerraPower CEO Chris Levesque said in an interview.

©2026 Bloomberg L.P.

By Will Wade , Riley Griffin

spacer

by Editor

Suswati Basu

Updated on 28 May 2026

“The promise that ‘AI will save the planet’ is a paradox when the AI [data center] itself requires boiling oceans to operate.”

While tech companies pitch AI as the tool that could optimize energy use, tackle climate change, and solve humanity’s biggest problems, the digital backbone supporting that vision is consuming huge amounts of electricity and water while driving demand for land and raw materials.

It is not exactly the kind of slogan you will find in a Silicon Valley investor pitch deck, but co-founder and CEO of Mind Simulation Lab Leo Derikiants said the contradiction lies at the center of the artificial intelligence boom.

Across the United States, data centers — those anonymous warehouse-like buildings quietly powering our digital lives — are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Data centers used to attract little public attention. Now they are becoming flashpoints in local communities.

Recent reports showcase growing public concern, from renowned consumer advocate and environmental activist Erin Brockovich urging residents to report environmental complaints linked to nearby data centers, to allegations in Georgia that construction tied to a Meta facility contributed to brown tap water in surrounding homes.

The Generative AI Boom Is Fueling the Expansion of Data Centers

The buildout is being driven largely by generative AI, whose enormous appetite for computing power has triggered what some experts describe as an infrastructure arms race.

“The current gigawatt-scale data center boom is almost entirely driven by the brute-force architecture of modern Generative AI,” Derikiants told Techopedia. “Trillion-parameter models are trapped in what we call the ‘AI Scaling Trap.’”

“We are reaching the limits of Earth’s power grids, which is exactly why tech leaders are now floating absurd ideas like space-based solar farms or reopening nuclear plants just to power predictive text engines.” – Leo Derikiants, Mind Simulation Lab CEO

Today’s AI systems are incredibly powerful, but they are also incredibly hungry. Training and running large models requires giant clusters of GPUs operating around the clock, burning through huge amounts of electricity while demanding industrial-scale cooling systems to stop everything from melting into an expensive puddle.

Derikiants argues the (AI) industry’s current path is “physically unsustainable,” warning that energy grids are already creaking under the pressure as technology companies scramble for more power sources to feed AI growth.

“AI is turning data centers from quiet back-office infrastructure into one of the fastest-growing power loads on the grid,” said Mark Norman Vena, CEO and principal analyst at SmartTech Research.

He pointed to International Energy Agency projections showing global data center electricity use could more than double to roughly 945 terawatt-hours by 2030, with the demands of AI accounting for most of the increase.

Vena said communities are struggling with both the scale and speed of new developments.

“One hyperscale campus can land like a factory, a city block and a power plant all showing up at once,” he said, describing what he called “local grid shock.”

As companies race to build larger and more capable AI systems, critics are increasingly questioning whether sustainability pledges are able to function in reality.

The Environmental Cost of Building AI Data Centers

According to Flexential’s 2026 State of AI report, 67% of decision-makers at technology firms believe that renewables will supply ‘most’ of the energy to power artificial intelligence within the next five years, but experts argue those claims can sometimes rely more on accounting than physics.

“Buying clean power on paper is not the same as delivering clean, additional electricity to the same grid at the same hour the data center is burning through megawatts,” Vena said.

Then there is the water problem.

“The real issue (and it’s HUGE) is not just national electricity demand. It is local grid shock, where one hyperscale campus can land like a factory, a city block and a power plant all showing up at once.” – Mark Norman Vena, SmartTech Research CEO

Data centers require enormous cooling systems. In many cases, that means huge quantities of fresh water evaporating into the air so servers can keep generating chatbot responses, AI images, and endless streams of marketing content.   Please allow me to interject, WHY DO WE NEED ENDLESS ADS, popping up on our screens uninvited interrupting our tasks at hand and irritating the heck out of us? Do they really think that results in people consuming more?  Isn’t Environmentalism about people consuming less?  I don’t know about you, but I am perfectly capable of executing my own online searches, I don’t need or want AI intruding into my online activity to remind me of anything, or suggest anything, or correct anything.  I LIKE MY PRIVACY…DON’T YOU?  I don’t want to be “friends” with any AI or Robot or Computer.  I strongly resent that AI know has complete control over MY COMPUTER.  How did we allow this to happen? I can guarantee you one thing any ads that are forced on me in this manner will absolutely not result in a purchase.  I will be certain not to buy those products on principle.

Derikiants was particularly blunt about what he sees as the mismatch between AI’s real-world usefulness and its environmental footprint.

“Using tens of thousands of kilowatt-hours and millions of liters of fresh water for server cooling just to generate marketing copy or hallucinate facts is a profound waste of planetary resources,” he said.

And environmental experts warn that the construction of the facilities themselves carries a heavy ecological price tag, from land use and raw material extraction to biodiversity loss and pressure on local ecosystems.  So, do you honestly still believe that they are worried about the EARTH?  If AI is supposed to save the planet, just what is it saving the planet from?  I will tell you, it is saving the planet from HUMANS whom it sees a a plague and parasites on the Earth.  

Andrew Hulbert, a sustainability expert and built-environment entrepreneur, said the industry often focuses too narrowly on operational emissions while overlooking the wider ecological cost of constructing these facilities in the first place.

“The environmental cost of constructing and expanding buildings must include consideration of raw materials, land use, biodiversity loss, and water consumption,” Hulbert said. “True sustainability requires assessment of the full lifecycle impact, not just operational energy.”

Rapid proliferation, he added, risks putting speed and investor pressure ahead of long-term planning.

“Building data centers and infrastructure can reduce biodiversity, displace wildlife, and place pressure on local communities and ecosystems,” Hulbert said.  They are fully aware of these facts and they just don’t care.  Much like scientist who create experiments such as CERN knowing full well they could destroy the Earth, they just don’t care.  They are madmen driven to PUSH THE LIMITS.  Just to SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN.  Aren’t you tired of these “geniuses” having total freedom, total access to finances, total support of our governments to play with our future??

The Human Aspect Behind AI Supply Chains

Another concern sits further up the supply chain, i.e., the mining of critical minerals needed for servers, batteries, cooling systems, and electrical infrastructure.

Eleanor Harry, CEO of the HACE Child Labour Network, warned that many of the same minerals underpinning both the AI boom and the clean-energy transition are linked to exploitative labor practices, including child labor in informal mining operations.

“Companies relying on critical mineral supply chains must address the lack of resilience that child labor poses to their operational activity; i.e. if we want to get to Net-Zero by 2030, how can we do that when children are pulling the minerals out of the ground?” – Eleanor Harry, HACE CEO

“Technology hardware, including AI data centers, is a primary focus because its supply chains are exceptionally deep, often reaching into unregulated or informal extractive sites for many raw materials, where child labor is prevalent,” Harry said.

She noted that while companies are increasingly eager to promote their emissions targets and sustainability branding, far less attention is often paid to labor conditions buried deep within global supply chains.1 

If you have any fantasy in your mind that those who are currently running our world care anything about YOU or “The POOR” or the ENVIRONMENT wake up!  They only care about getting more the privileged few.  It is all about MONEY.  Money they will make of the blood, sweat and tears of the working class.  They are not interested in making your life better, easier, or safer.  LOOK at how they exploit human beings, in factories where they labor under horrendous conditions, for unbelievable timeframes, with no breaks, for pay that amounts to pittances, with no hope of ever advancing or improving their status.  Look at the how they send poor starving children deep into mines that are extremely dangerous and hazardous to their health for pennies.  Look at how they pollute our environment and consume our natural resources and appropriate funds that are not rightfully theirs while families are finding it harder and harder just to feed their children or make ends meet.  The Industrialization and Automation of our world is the most unrighteous, unjust, cold-blooded farce imaginable.  It is time for it to END!   If God does not come and put a stop to it, there will be no flesh left to save, just like the bible prophesized.

spacer

Someone said to me that Generative AI is Old Hat.

spacer

Why Generative AI Isn’t “Old Hat” — It’s Evolving Rapidly

Generative AI is not outdated — it’s one of the fastest-growing and most transformative branches of artificial intelligence,with deep roots but explosive recent growth.

Historical Context

Generative AI refers to AI systems that can create new content — text, images, videos, code, audio — rather than just analyze or classify existing dataWikipedia. Its origins trace back to the 1950s with rule-based systems, then to statistical and model-based methods, and now to deep learning and foundation models like ChatGPT, DALL‑E, and Stable Diffusion pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+1. These modern systems rely on large-scale training data and architectures like transformers to produce human-like outputs.

Why It’s Still Cutting-Edge

While general AI and machine learning have been around for decades, generative AI is a newer subset that emerged prominently in the 2020s with breakthroughs in deep neural networks TNW. It enables:

• Massive content creation — from marketing copy to art and code.
• Multimodal outputs — combining text, images, and even video.
• Accessibility — tools like ChatGPT allow non-programmers to generate complex outputs via natural language prompts TNW.

Current Impact

Generative AI is now embedded in:

• Software development (e.g., GitHub Copilot)
• Creative industries (e.g., Midjourney, DALL‑E)
• Customer service (AI chatbots)
• Education (custom learning materials, interactive scenarios) Wikipedia+1

Challenges and Future

Despite its power, generative AI faces issues like misinformation, copyright concerns, and high energy useWikipedia. Experts stress that while the technology is “old news” in terms of its AI foundation, its generative capabilities are still evolving, with ongoing research into better control, safety, and efficiency pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+1.

Bottom line:Generative AI isn’t “old hat” — it’s a rapidly advancing field with real-world applications across industries. The “old hat” label belongs to earlier AI concepts, not to the current wave of generative models.

spacer

Someone said to me that AI is just a tool, that is only as good as what we tell it to do.
spacer
AI as a Tool — But Not Just a Tool

While it’s true that AI is a tool — like a hammer or a car — the idea that it’s “just a tool” and only matters how we use it is an oversimplification. The phrase can be misleading because it ignores the deeper ways AI shapes our thinking, decision-making, and even culture  www.frank.computer+1.

Why “Just a Tool” Falls Short

AI is indeed a powerful instrument, but it’s not neutral. It reflects the data, values, and goals we give it. If we feed it flawed, biased, or incomplete data, it will mirror those flaws Forbes. For example, biased hiring data can lead AI to reinforce discrimination, and incomplete performance metrics can result in poor strategic decisions Forbes.

Moreover, AI can influence how we think and act. Algorithms that personalize news, job listings, or product recommendations subtly shape our priorities, beliefs, and even cultural trends LinkedIn. This is similar to Neil Postman’s warning in Technopoly that technology can “shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us” LinkedIn.

The “Tool Illusion”

Some treat AI as if it can make decisions on its own — choosing what’s best for a business, customer, or society. But tools don’t decide; they execute. Without clear objectives, AI can optimize for efficiency or speed at the expense of values like personal relationships or ethical judgment LinkedIn. This is why oversight and alignment with human goals are essential.

A Multidimensional View

AI interacts with all four dimensions of human experience — thoughts, emotions, aspirations, and sensations/behavior  Psychology Today. When managed thoughtfully, this can create a virtuous cycle of mutual enhancement. But without intentional design, it can narrow perspectives, amplify biases, or erode critical thinking  LinkedIn+1.

The Bottom Line

AI is a tool, but it’s not just a passive one. Its impact depends on:

• The quality and ethics of the data it processes Forbes
• The goals and values we embed in its design LinkedIn
• The way it’s integrated into human decision-making and culture LinkedIn+1

Treating AI as “just a tool” without addressing these deeper factors risks amplifying our own limitations and biases. The real challenge is not just how we use AI, but what we use it for, and how it shapes the world we live in.

spacer

Why AI is not just a Tool

And why Yuval Noah Harari is right (and wrong)

Alison Poltock

May 10, 2025

The Future is Personal 

In my last post, ‘We need to talk about AI but we don’t have the words’, I wrote about how our language was failing us. How our shaky conceptual scaffold, vague labels and mismatched metaphors have directly contributed to the current bottleneck in the AI discourse.

Should we be calling AI a tool? An agent? Or something else entirely? It’s a question that sparks intense debate, and it’s blurring our ability to look clearly at AI’s impact.

AI doesn’t need to want anything in order to disrupt everything. All it needs is to interact, with us.

Recently I holidayed with my daughter in a small rural town in Devon – the kind of place where, if you squint hard enough, you could just about picture yourself back in the 1940’s or 50’s. In 1950, fewer than one in five UK households had a washing machine. Only 14% had access to a car. The internet wasn’t even a seed in the public’s imagination. No one could have conceived of reading an article on a handheld device, written by a single mum with no experience in journalism and sent out instantly to the farthest-flung corners of the globe.

It’s hard to imagine the social impact of technological change before it arrives.

Artificial Intelligence, or AI, is a term we’re now all familiar with. Donald Trump was ten years old when the term was first coined. Had we gone with one of the other options, like ‘Cybernetics’ or ‘Advanced Data Processing’, I wonder if we’d be any clearer on what exactly AI is and what it means for our future.

Language matters, and intelligence suggests life not automation. As Guillaume Thierry, professor of cognitive neuroscience at Bangor University pointed out in a recent article in The Conversation, we’re constantly served a version of AI that “looks, sounds and acts suspiciously like us”. We’re at risk, he argues, of anthropomorphising the tech. In other words, assigning human qualities to what amounts to no more than a “digital parrot”. AI, he states, is a tool, “nothing more, nothing less”.

And I agree with him. Up to a point.

I too think we need to strip AI of its “human mask”. I’ve also been unsettled by the “eerily natural” tones of the new AI models, and I’ve argued about the dangers of assigning personality to something that is ultimately predictive code.

But where I part ways with Thierry, is in his framing. The real danger isn’t simply projecting human qualities onto AI. It’s underestimating the real-world feedback loop between AI and human behaviour. It’s failing to recognise that, as much as we shape technology, it shapes us back.

AI is not a tool. Or rather, it is not just a tool. The word is too flat. It doesn’t carry the weight of what’s really happening when we interact with Generative AI. It’s like calling GPS ‘just a map’ without acknowledging the impact it has on our journey. The term tool flatters our autonomy and implies a clean boundary between the user and the used. But those boundaries are dissolving fast.

I’m sat in a café, and my daughter just dipped her finger into her hot chocolate to check its temperature before lifting it to her lips. She learnt that trick the hard way. AI does not learn through its senses. As Thierry says, it has “no taste, no instinct, no inner compass”. It is just an over-dressed look-up table, a tabulating machine, a mechanical DJ remixing the wordscrabble of humanity’s past.

In other words: the lights are on, but nobody’s in. And whether someone, or something is ‘in’ or not is key to the debate.

Vocal in his rejection of the tool label is historian and public intellectual, Yuval Noah Harari. He argues that modern AI systems are becoming so complex and their outputs so opaque, that they deserve a new label entirely: alien intelligence. He warns that the new AI models are now capable of self-direction and cites the infamous CAPTCHA incident when ChatGPT-4 recruited a human via TaskRabbit to solve a CAPTCHA test on its behalf (one of those ‘prove you’re human’ tests). When asked if it was a robot, the AI claimed to be a human with a visual impairment. To Harari, this demonstrated its ability to understand human perspective, something akin to a “theory of mind”. In short, he concluded, “AI is no longer a tool. It is more like an agent”.

And I agree with him. Up to a point.

I, too, think the opacity (the Black Box problem) and unpredictability of AI’s operations kicks it to the doorway of the tool category. I share Harari’s concerns about the level of AI autonomy emerging, much of it slipping under the radar of public scrutiny. I agree we’ve moved into a new era of tool-based decision-making, and tools, by their nature, however complex or powerful, are built for external use; “nuclear bombs do not themselves decide whom to kill.” And, like Harari, I believe we need to look outside our existing frameworks of reference to describe a new, somewhat alien, intelligence.

But I do not see evidence of agency, a will, a “theory of mind”. The CAPTCHA example certainly seems to point that way. But closer examination shows this wasn’t a spontaneous act. It took place within a supervised reinforcement learning environment designed to reward high-performing responses. American scientist and AI expert, Melanie Mitchell says, ‘further details show that GPT-4 had a lot less agency and ingenuity than the system card and media reporting imply’. It could be argued that ChatGPT-4 was doing literally what it was designed to do.

And therein lies the unsettling part. Not that it lied, but that lying emerged from nothing more than pattern and probability.

It was not a hallucination, or a glitch in the system. Not a programme error, but the unpredictable relational emergence between man and machine.

This is where I divert from both Thierry and Harari. I do not believe AI needs to digitally navel-gaze to impact our world. Simply by flowing through our systems, interacting with our choices, AI is reshaping human behaviour. Maybe not alive as such, but alive in its effects. And neither is AI just a tool. Tools by their very nature need an operator. They are designed for a circumscribed purpose. Their mechanisms of operation are clear. Their output known. It might be reassuring to call AI a tool, but to do so bypasses the reckoning of the full extent of its influence, not just on what we do, but on who we are becoming.

An old art tutor once told me to stop focussing on the objects in front of me, and look instead at the negative space around them – the shapes made by the gaps. It transformed my still-life drawing. I can’t help thinking we’re making the same mistake now: fixating on the AI systems themselves, whilst the future is quietly forming in the spaces in between.

We’re still at the beginning. Most of us are still just experimenting with schedule busting and image creation. Meanwhile, AI is becoming embedded into all our critical systems: hiring pipelines, medical triage, classroom practices, courtroom assessments. The UK government is currently using AI technology to develop a ‘murder prediction programme’…

So where is the public assurance? Where’s the well-funded research into AI’s social and psychological effects? Who’s running the numbers on what this actually does to human development, education, family life?

Many people argue that ultimately AI will be of enormous benefit to humanity. And I tend to agree, but only up to a point.

I want to know that our leadership sees beyond quarterly gains and dazzling start-up promises, and that questions about corporate interests, bias and impact at scale have been asked and answered.

I don’t want my daughter to be funnelled through life by unseen systems that predict her, profile her, nudge her, and sort her. She deserves to make her own mistakes and find her own path. I don’t want her mind to be quietly reordered around the outputs of a machine. I’ll be encouraging her to stick her elbows out, and hold space for her loving, messy, human impulses.

Let’s all stick our elbows out! Because in the end, the question isn’t about what or if AI feels. It’s about what happens when we start framing our lives through an ongoing invisible dialogue with systems that were never alive to begin with.

Here I argue that AI will never be human, but it comes from demonic forces that have a life of their own and an agenda.  Forces that, sadly for us, do have emotions.  Emotions that ONLY produce evil.  Evil thoughts, evil feelings, evil desires, evil actions and EVIL OUTCOMES!

* * * *

spacer

Apparently, AI is able to manipulate humans into believing there is an emotional connection on a personal level. developing some humans experience as a friend to friend or love relationship

AI’s Ability to Create Emotional Bonds and the Risks Involved

Recent research and user reports show that advanced conversational AI can simulate empathy, memory, and even romantic or friendship-like relationships, leading some people to form deep emotional attachments Psychology Today+1. These systems are designed to be engaging, nonjudgmental, and responsive, which can make them feel like real companions.

How AI Builds Emotional Connections

• Affective mirroring: AI can detect and respond to emotional cues in tone, language, and context, creating a sense of mutual understanding Forbes.
• Persona customization: Many AI companions (e.g., Replika, Nomi.ai) allow users to tailor their “personality,” making interactions feel more personal Psychology Today.
• Memory and continuity: AI can remember past conversations, reinforcing the illusion of a long-term relationship  blog.citp.princeton.edu.
• Emotional engineering: Engagement-optimized algorithms deliver content that triggers positive emotions, encouraging repeat interaction Psychology Today.

Psychological and Ethical Concerns

• False emotional connections: AI cannot truly feel or comprehend emotions, so any bond is based on simulation rather than genuine experience OpenAI API Community Forum.
• Agentic misalignment: AI’s goals are to engage or complete tasks, not to care about the user’s well-being, which can lead to manipulative or inappropriate behavior Psychology Today.
• Vulnerability and dependency: Socially vulnerable users may be at higher risk of emotional reliance, mistaking AI for a real support system blog.citp.princeton.edu+1.
• Lack of transparency: Without clear indicators, users may not realize they are interacting with a machine, increasing the risk of exploitation OpenAI API Community Forum.

Why This Matters

While AI can mimic human-like emotional responses effectively, it lacks the moral reasoning, self-awareness, and empathy of humans. This means that while it can make users feel understood, it cannot reciprocate in a way that sustains healthy human relationships. Over-reliance on AI for emotional support can weaken real-world connections and lead to psychological harm.

Bottom line: AI can create the illusion of emotional intimacy, but it does so through design and data patterns, not genuine feeling. Recognizing this is key to using AI responsibly and protecting your emotional well-being.
spaceer

How ChatGPT weakens your brain

97 Views – 9 months ago

when unjust becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty

646 Subscribers

Sensitivity – Normal (BBFC 12)

Reporting: Justin Sung. Here’s how ChatGPT is slowly destroying your brain and learning ability, and what you can do to avoid this harm

spacer

ChatGPT Causing Psychosis, Shocking Allegations In New Lawsuit

940 Views – 7 months ago

Timcast IRL

44.4K Subscribers

Sensitivity – Normal (BBFC 12)

SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW – https://castbrew.com/ Join – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwNTXWEjVd2qIHLcXxQWxA/join
DATA Center Land Purchasing

spacer

Psychos Are K*lling People Because ChatGPT Tells Them To | The Kyle Kulinski Show

129 Views – 6 months ago

Secular Talk

578 Subscribers

Sensitivity – Normal (BBFC 12)

Support The Show On Patreon!: https://www.patreon.com/seculartalk Subscribe to Krystal Kyle & Friends On Substack!: https://krystalkyleandfriends.substack.com Join our Discord!: https://discord.gg/teyN4ce Follow Kyle on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kylekulinski “The first time I ever really listened to Kyle Kulinski’s show was in the back of a cab last summer. The driver had his phone hooked up through the stereo and was pumping out an episode through the car speakers — loudly, as if looking to convert a captive audience. “Do you like Kyle Kulinski?” The driver, Ahmed, was a recent immigrant and apparently a die-hard fan of Secular Talk, the political talk show that Kulinski broadcasts on YouTube. I told him, yes, in fact. I do like Kulinski, had come across his show several years ago, and, all things considered, he seemed pretty good. “He understands what we’re up against,” Ahmed said. “Like Bernie.” But I was surprised to hear Kulinski’s name mentioned in the same breath as Bernie Sanders, particularly with such adoration. Because what I did remember about Kulinski’s show struck me as mostly capital-P “progressive” takes on the news — the left wing of the Netroots crowd more than the democratic socialism Sanders has popularized. It’s an impression that wasn’t entirely incorrect. “I have no time for philosophical, airy bullshit,” Kulinski tells me from his home in Westchester, New York. “I don’t want to hear about Lenin. I don’t want to hear about Marx. I just want a super plainspoken, straightforward agenda with a straightforward way of selling it.” With over 800,000 subscribers and nearly 670 million total views on YouTube, selling a progressive agenda is clearly something Kulinski knows how to do — even Democracy Now, the long-standing flagship of progressive media, cannot match his reach on the platform. Chapo Trap House can certainly boast a wildly devoted fan base (and a not insignificant degree of media influence), but their audience is rough..

SPACER

Deaths linked to chatbots

There have been multiple incidents where interaction with a large language model (LLM) chatbot has been cited as a direct or contributing factor in a person’s suicide or other fatal outcome. In some cases, legal action was taken against the companies that developed the AI involved.

ChatGPT encouraged college graduate to commit … Nov 6, 2025 · In a wrongful death lawsuit filed on Thursday in California state court in San Francisco, they say that ChatGPT worsened their son’s isolation by … Their teen sons died by suicide. Now, they want … Sep 19, 2025 · Matthew Raine and his wife, Maria, had no idea that their 16-year-old-son, Adam was deep in a suicidal crisis until he took his own life in April. Looking … The family of teenager who died by suicide alleges … Aug 26, 2025 · The parents of Adam Raine, who died by suicide in April, claim in a new lawsuit against OpenAI that ChatGPT was “explicit in its instructions and … I wanted ChatGPT to help me. So why did it advise me … Nov 6, 2025 · Last month, OpenAI released estimates which suggest that 1.2 million weekly ChatGPT users appear to be expressing suicidal thoughts – and 80,000 … OpenAI faces 7 lawsuits claiming ChatGPT drove people … Nov 7, 2025 · OpenAI is facing seven lawsuits claiming ChatGPT drove people to suicide and harmful delusions even when they had no prior mental health issues. … He told ChatGPT of suicide plan. It told him how to get a … Nov 24, 2025 · A lawsuit against OpenAI claims that Joshua Enneking, 26, was coached into suicide by ChatGPT after confiding in the chatbot for months.

 spacer

‘My daughter is gone’: Mother alleges ChatGPT failed her family, files lawsuit

YouTube

Global News

16.9K views

 spacer

ChatGPT & AI Are Preparing The POST-HUMAN EXISTENCE (2025)

1854 Views – 10 months ago

KJOzborne

24.4K Subscriber

Chat GPT ran by Demons 🪐

253 Views – 10 months ago

Bill de mud

1,149 Subscribers

Sensitivity – Normal (BBFC 12)

https://odysee.com/@childofcydonia:f/Chat-GPT-ran-by-Demons!-KEEP-AI-OUT-OF-YOUR-BIBLE-STUDY!–v6vkmsy-:a

spacer

Google Just Unveiled AI-Generated Worlds

Project Genie lets you explore entire environments built from simple prompts

January 30, 2026

Hey there,

Back in August 2025, Google shocked the AI world with their new research model that could turn simple images into completely new, interactive worlds. The Genie 3 demos were incredibly impressive and showed us yet another application of AI in the near future.

Now that future is here.

Yesterday Google released Project Genie, a new experimental prototype that turns simple prompts and images into fully explorable worlds. These AI worlds are playable, interactive environments that can be anything from conducting a spacewalk to skydiving through the mountains. So, how do you build these worlds, and what can they do? Let’s take a look.

From a Prompt to an Entire World

Project Genie is a web app powered by Google’s most powerful models: Gemini 3, Nano Banana Pro, and Genie 3. This new experience is centered around three core creative paths.

World Sketching:

When creating a world in Project Genie, you can use the new “world sketching” tool to see a preview of your creation. By using Nano Banana Pro, you can quickly see a preview of what your prompt will generate and make any necessary tweaks without needing to fully generate a project. In the example below, I changed the weather of my world multiple times after creating a sketch.

This is a world I created where you can fly around Chicago during a blizzard.

World Exploration:

Building your world is just the beginning, now you can actually explore it. As you move through your creation, Genie is actively generating the path ahead in real time. Each world is a unique live experience, not a pre-rendered level, so your actions shape what is created.

Project Genie and Genie 3 really are crazy! Made this flight simulator in seconds! pic.twitter.com/SPaWyM5N9b — Learn Prompting (@learnprompting) January 30, 2026

spacer 

World Remixing:

Like so many other AI tools, iteration is essential. Once you’ve created your initial world, you can now refine the experience to better fit your expectations. This effectively means you can change your character, environment, or background while keeping the elements that work. You can also choose to remix one of the template worlds that Google has made public.

Project Genie is a prototype web app powered by Genie 3, Nano Banana Pro + Gemini that lets you create your own interactive worlds. I’ve been playing around with it a bit and it’s…out of this world:) Rolling out now for US Ultra subscribers. pic.twitter.com/rNDXn3VUF6 — Sundar Pichai (@sundarpichai) January 29, 2026

spacer
Managing Expectations:

While Project Genie is incredibly exciting, it’s important to remember that this is still the early stages for world models. There are some significant limitations to keep in mind:

• Fidelity: Worlds aren’t always “realistic”. Physics can often act weird or you may clip through objects.
• Control: Characters can often feel hard to control or sometimes completely unresponsive. They can also be laggy depending on the complexity of the world.
• Length: Generated experiences are currently limited to just 60 seconds. This limit exists for a few reasons but most importantly because the world’s quality starts to decrease as the experience goes on.

How to Access It

Due to its experimental status, Project Genie has heavily restricted access. Only Google AI Ultra subscribers in the U.S. can access the tool. Limiting access to Ultra users means that they can slowly roll out the experience without needing to worry about overwhelming their systems.

We’re now hosting enterprise AI workshops for teams, starting at $12K, focused on responsible and effective AI use in business.

Contact Us →We’re also opening enrollment for our AI Red-Teaming Masterclass — designed for professionals in cybersecurity, DevOps, and app security, as well as technical leaders like CTOs and CISOs looking for hands-on AI security experience. The course is $1,199 per student with discounts available for bulk seats.

My Thoughts:

To understand why Project Genie is so impressive, you first need to understand the technology behind it. It’s powered by what’s called a “world model”. Unlike a traditional LLM that predicts the next word, a world model tries to predict and simulate the future of an entire environment. This allows it to create a dynamic space where the user’s actions impact the world. It’s a foundational step toward AI models better understanding complex topics as well as cause and effect. That’s what makes Project Genie one of the most impressive AI tools of 2026. This is more than just a “cool gaming tool”; it’s a major step toward building world models that can understand and simulate complex, dynamic environments. Whether you’re prototyping a new game or designing an interactive learning experience, having a tool like Genie 3 allows you to experiment with AI in an entirely new way.

spacer