Business
Microsoft And Constellation Energy Unveil Plan To Restart Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant
The Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant (Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images)
Weird Money

Did tech's AI obsession accidentally kickstart the next nuclear age?

Nuclear energy just might solve big tech's AI emissions problems.

Jack Raines

In 2019 and 2020, big tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon made “net zero” pledges, stating that they would emit zero carbon emissions by either 2030 or 2040. The generative AI boom of the last two years, however, has proven to be a difficult obstacle in the fight to reduce emissions. Three months ago, I discussed how generative AI investments were causing a massive uptick in big tech emissions, quoting Google’s 2024 environmental report:

In 2023, our total GHG emissions were 14.3 million tCO2e, representing a 13% year-over-year increase and a 48% increase compared to our 2019 target base year. This result was primarily due to increases in data center energy consumption and supply chain emissions. As we further integrate AI into our products, reducing emissions may be challenging due to increasing energy demands from the greater intensity of AI compute, and the emissions associated with the expected increases in our technical infrastructure investment.

In May, Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, made similar comments regarding AI’s impact on its emissions, per Bloomberg

Now to meet its goals, the software giant will have to make serious progress very quickly in gaining access to green steel and concrete and less carbon-intensive chips, said Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, in an exclusive interview with Bloomberg Green. “In 2020, we unveiled what we called our carbon moonshot. That was before the explosion in artificial intelligence,” he said. “So in many ways the moon is five times as far away as it was in 2020, if you just think of our own forecast for the expansion of AI and its electrical needs.”

For context, Microsoft’s emissions increased by ~30% from 2020 to 2023. However, the big tech company may have found the solution to its emission woes: nuclear energy. According to The Information, Microsoft signed a deal to restart a nuclear power plant on Three Mile Island, the same site of the now-infamous 1979 reactor meltdown. This comes six months after Amazon signed a $650 million deal with Talen Energy to buy nuclear power for an AWS data center.

Why is this a big deal? Nuclear is, literally, the cleanest energy source we have, emitting just 6 tons of of CO2 per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced, compared to 11 tons for wind, 53 for solar, and 440 for natural gas, but nuclear gets a bad rap, largely due to disastrous accidents like Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, leading countries to shy away from nuclear investment. Germany’s “green” party, for example, led the shutdown of the country’s final three nuclear reactors last year. However, even when you include reactor disasters, nuclear is really, really safe:

Our World in Data Cleanest Energy Sources
Source: Our World in Data

If energy transition is a priority, then nuclear can (and, frankly, should) play a large role, especially considering that it’s our most reliable energy source, but public opinion and government policy have been limiting factors in expanding our nuclear capabilities. Ironically, big tech’s emissions-heavy AI investment may prove to be the catalyst needed to kickstart more nuclear investment.

These tech companies have signaled that their AI investments are only going to increase as they fight to gain an edge in this market, and their best chance to limit emissions in the face of increasing energy needs is nuclear. In June, I noted that, so far, management consultants appeared to be the winners of generative AI growth. If energy usage continues to climb, nuclear might prove to be the next surprise beneficiary.

More Business

See all Business
business

The Trump administration is reportedly planning a 50% made-in-America requirement for USMCA tariff relief

Qualifying for USMCA-related lower tariffs may soon require more US-made vehicle components, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal.

The Trump administration is reportedly planning to introduce a 50% US content requirement for vehicles covered by the trade pact to receive lower tariffs. The content would be measured by cost, according to the WSJ.

There currently isn’t any US-specific requirement for those lower tariff rates, but in order to receive preferential tariffs, vehicles are must contain at least 75% regional content (components made in North America). Per Reuters reporting, the Trump admin is seeking to raise the regional requirement to 82%.

These reported plans are subject to change as the US negotiates USMCA terms with Mexico over the next few months.

Overall, Tesla will likely have the easiest time qualifying for any stricter requirements. The automaker’s vehicles contained the highest amount of US/Canadian content in 2025, according to American University research. Ford, GM, and Stellantis all scored lower.

Notably: the underlying government data that many domestic content measurements rely on intentionally combines US and Canadian components, so it’s difficult to know exactly how much of any given vehicle is specifically US-made.

There currently isn’t any US-specific requirement for those lower tariff rates, but in order to receive preferential tariffs, vehicles are must contain at least 75% regional content (components made in North America). Per Reuters reporting, the Trump admin is seeking to raise the regional requirement to 82%.

These reported plans are subject to change as the US negotiates USMCA terms with Mexico over the next few months.

Overall, Tesla will likely have the easiest time qualifying for any stricter requirements. The automaker’s vehicles contained the highest amount of US/Canadian content in 2025, according to American University research. Ford, GM, and Stellantis all scored lower.

Notably: the underlying government data that many domestic content measurements rely on intentionally combines US and Canadian components, so it’s difficult to know exactly how much of any given vehicle is specifically US-made.

business
Tom Jones

The $640,000 Luce makes the average Ferrari look like a bargain

Put aside the shape; put aside the smoothing out of Ferrari’s iconic sharp edges; put aside, even, the calls from former Chairman and President Luca Cordero di Montezemolo to “take the Prancing Horse off.” On the grounds of price alone, Luce detractors might have a point.

By now, many of us will have read the criticisms of Ferrari’s first fully electric vehicle, as the Luce — which was unveiled to the world earlier this week and promptly saw the company’s shares crash out in New York and Milan — gets subtly shaded by competitors online and not-so-subtly shaded by basically everyone else.

What makes all of this worse for Ferrari is that, even by the luxury car maker’s notoriously high standards, they’ve slapped a pretty hefty price tag on the Luce, and the company’s CEO, Benedetto Vigna, has already been forced to defend the €550,000 ($640,000) price point, saying yesterday that it’s “fair to pay for innovation,” per Reuters.

While Ferrari’s cars have been getting more expensive of late, as recently as 2022, Ferrari’s average revenue per car sold was around $340,000. At nearly twice that price, this new electric model is obviously proving a little much (visually, conceptually, and financially) for many loyal and long-standing fans of the Prancing Horse to stomach.

Ferrari Luce cost chart
Sherwood News

By now, many of us will have read the criticisms of Ferrari’s first fully electric vehicle, as the Luce — which was unveiled to the world earlier this week and promptly saw the company’s shares crash out in New York and Milan — gets subtly shaded by competitors online and not-so-subtly shaded by basically everyone else.

What makes all of this worse for Ferrari is that, even by the luxury car maker’s notoriously high standards, they’ve slapped a pretty hefty price tag on the Luce, and the company’s CEO, Benedetto Vigna, has already been forced to defend the €550,000 ($640,000) price point, saying yesterday that it’s “fair to pay for innovation,” per Reuters.

While Ferrari’s cars have been getting more expensive of late, as recently as 2022, Ferrari’s average revenue per car sold was around $340,000. At nearly twice that price, this new electric model is obviously proving a little much (visually, conceptually, and financially) for many loyal and long-standing fans of the Prancing Horse to stomach.

Ferrari Luce cost chart
Sherwood News

Latest Stories

Sherwood Media, LLC and Chartr Limited produce fresh and unique perspectives on topical financial news and are fully owned subsidiaries of Robinhood Markets, Inc., and any views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of any other Robinhood affiliate, including Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Crypto, LLC, Robinhood Money, LLC, Robinhood U.K. Ltd, Robinhood Derivatives, LLC, Robinhood Gold, LLC, Robinhood Asset Management, LLC, Robinhood Credit, Inc., Robinhood Ventures DE, LLC and, where applicable, its managed investment vehicles.