Major technology companies are pursuing nuclear power to fuel their artificial intelligence data centers, but they're deliberately staying in the role of customers rather than owners. According to a new analysis from the Carnegie Endowment, announced nuclear agreements between hyperscalers and nuclear utilities could provide up to 13 gigawatts of power by the early 2030s, yet the structure of these deals reveals a pattern of risk avoidance that may shape the future of America's energy infrastructure.

What Are Hyperscalers Actually Committing To?

The "big four" technology companies, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft, have each signed agreements to secure nuclear power, but through distinctly different pathways. These arrangements fall into two main categories: power purchase agreements (PPAs) with established utilities, and direct partnerships with newer companies developing smaller, advanced reactors. The distinction matters because it reveals how much financial and reputational risk each company is willing to accept.

Power purchase agreements are straightforward contracts in which a company commits to buying electricity at a fixed price over a long term from an existing or planned nuclear plant. This approach lets hyperscalers secure reliable power without building or operating the reactors themselves. In contrast, direct partnerships with startup reactor developers are venture capital moves, allowing companies to take stakes in future opportunities as new nuclear technology matures. These deals are far more speculative and carry greater uncertainty about timelines and costs.

Alphabet has partnered with Kairos Power and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to purchase up to 50 megawatts of electricity from an advanced molten-salt-cooled reactor called Hermes-2, expected to begin operating in 2030. This represents the first U.S. utility power purchase agreement featuring a Generation IV advanced reactor. Beyond this initial deal, Google has committed to a "Master Plan Development Program" with Kairos aiming to launch a portfolio of advanced nuclear projects reaching 500 megawatts of total capacity by 2035.

Amazon and Talen Energy announced an agreement in June 2025 to supply nuclear power for AWS cloud technologies. Meanwhile, Meta and Microsoft are funding the extension or restart of existing nuclear power plants, taking a different approach that relies on proven technology rather than experimental reactor designs.

Why Are Tech Companies Avoiding Direct Nuclear Ownership?

The Carnegie analysis identifies several reasons why hyperscalers have remained cautious despite their public enthusiasm for nuclear energy. The primary factor is risk management. Building and operating nuclear power plants involves regulatory complexity, construction delays, cost overruns, and long-term liability exposure. By acting as energy customers rather than developers or owners, technology companies can secure the reliable, high-density power their data centers need while avoiding these entanglement risks.

Reputational exposure represents another significant concern. Nuclear projects attract public scrutiny and environmental activism. A major cost overrun or safety incident at a reactor owned or directly financed by a tech company could damage its brand and invite regulatory backlash. By purchasing power through utilities, hyperscalers maintain distance from operational decisions and public controversies.

Nonproliferation concerns and long-term nuclear waste management also factor into corporate decision-making. These are issues that utilities and governments have traditionally managed, and technology companies appear reluctant to assume responsibility for them. The Carnegie report notes that hyperscalers will need to confront these entanglement risks as their nuclear commitments deepen, but for now, the contractual structures they've chosen allow them to defer such obligations.

How Are Hyperscalers Structuring Their Nuclear Deals?

The diversity of deal structures reflects the varying levels of technological, financial, and reputational risk each company is willing to accept. Some arrangements involve connecting new power sources to existing transmission grids, while others may ultimately be "behind-the-meter," meaning the power is produced onsite directly for the customer. This flexibility allows companies to tailor their energy strategies to their specific infrastructure needs and risk tolerance.

• Power Purchase Agreements with Utilities: Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft have all signed PPAs with established nuclear utilities, securing electricity from existing or planned plants at fixed prices over long-term contracts. This approach provides immediate or near-term power supply with minimal operational risk.
• Direct Partnerships with Advanced Reactor Developers: Companies like Alphabet are also investing in startups developing small modular reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV advanced reactors. These partnerships are longer-term bets that allow hyperscalers to take equity stakes in future opportunities as new nuclear technology matures.
• Hedging on Nuclear Fusion: Several hyperscalers are also positioning themselves for nuclear fusion as a potential energy source that could begin entering the mix by the mid-2030s, diversifying their long-term energy strategy beyond fission-based reactors.

The announced agreements to date could provide roughly 6.9 gigawatts of nuclear energy from the "big four" hyperscalers by the early 2030s, split roughly equally between PPAs and direct partnerships. This represents a significant but still cautious commitment to nuclear power relative to the scale of their overall data center buildouts.

What Does This Mean for America's Energy Future?

The entry of hyperscalers into the nuclear market is reshaping a traditionally regulated and slow-moving industry. Historically, major utilities owned and operated nuclear plants, while a handful of established reactor vendors supplied the technology. Now, technology companies are partnering with startup firms developing small and advanced reactors, as well as nuclear developers operating in a "one-stop shop" model. This diversity of actors and deal structures represents a significant shift in how nuclear power gets financed and deployed in the United States.

However, the cautious nature of hyperscaler commitments raises questions about whether big tech is truly willing to make big bets on nuclear power. The Carnegie analysis suggests that while hyperscalers are serious about securing nuclear energy, their preference for customer roles over ownership roles reflects genuine concerns about the risks and complexities of nuclear development. As electricity demand from artificial intelligence and cloud computing continues to rise, the coming decade will require technology companies to decide how deeply they're willing to commit to nuclear power and what obligations they're prepared to accept.

The broader context is one of urgency. Data centers are consuming enormous amounts of electricity, and traditional power sources may not be able to keep pace with demand. Nuclear power offers the kind of firm, high-density electricity that data centers require while allowing companies to maintain public climate commitments. Yet the structural caution evident in current deals suggests that hyperscalers view nuclear as one important piece of their energy strategy, not a silver bullet. Their willingness to invest in multiple pathways, from PPAs with established utilities to partnerships with advanced reactor startups, indicates a hedging strategy designed to manage risk while securing the power their AI infrastructure demands.