Amazon, Microsoft, and Google have collectively thrown over $1 billion at small modular reactors to power their cloud data centres. By 2030, AI workloads will eat up 945 terawatt-hours annually. These hyperscalers are betting big that nuclear can deliver 24/7 carbon-free baseload power to meet that demand.
Big Tech’s nuclear power pivot matters to you because it’s going to affect cloud pricing, where you can deploy your workloads, and your energy strategy over the next decade. The question isn’t whether nuclear-powered cloud is coming. It’s when you’ll be able to access it and what it will cost.
How Can Enterprise Customers Access Nuclear-Powered Cloud Computing Resources?
You’ve got three access pathways for nuclear-powered cloud computing: public cloud regions powered by SMRs, colocation facilities with nuclear-backed power contracts, and dedicated private cloud infrastructure adjacent to nuclear plants.
As detailed in our analysis of hyperscaler strategies, Microsoft Azure is planning Three Mile Island-powered capacity by 2028 through Constellation Energy’s 837 MW restart. Pennsylvania and mid-Atlantic regions get first access.
Google Cloud is deploying 500 MW across Tennessee and Alabama through Kairos Power SMRs and TVA grid integration. First capacity arrives in 2030, full deployment by 2035.
Amazon is targeting 5 gigawatts by 2039 via the Cascade Advanced Energy Facility in Washington state. They’re starting with four X-energy SMRs generating 320 MW, then expanding to 12 units. Construction begins before 2030, operations start early 2030s.
The reality is straightforward—there’s no immediate access pathway. Earliest enterprise availability is 2028 for Azure. Mainstream access hits in the 2030-2035 timeframe.
You need to plan a 3-7 year runway for nuclear-powered cloud adoption. Your immediate decisions should focus on positioning for future migration, not waiting around for nuclear to arrive.
Will Nuclear Power Make Cloud Computing More Expensive or Cheaper?
Looking at the cost trajectory, the levelised cost of electricity for SMRs is projected at $89-102 per megawatt-hour initially, potentially hitting $120/MWh by 2030. Compare that to wind and solar at $26-50/MWh. On generation costs alone, nuclear looks more expensive.
But that’s not the full picture.
Higher baseload generation costs get offset by eliminating intermittency penalties, battery storage requirements, and carbon offset purchases for 24/7 operation. Nuclear provides continuous power regardless of weather. Wind and solar need grid backup—typically natural gas—when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.
Hyperscalers are unlikely to pass direct SMR savings to you initially. The realistic expectation is that nuclear-powered cloud services will price at parity or a slight premium (5-10%) to traditional cloud. Potential cost reduction might arrive post-2035 as SMR deployment scales.
Your total cost of ownership analysis needs to evaluate total energy costs including carbon compliance, not just per-hour compute rates. Nuclear enables genuine 24/7 carbon-free claims versus renewable energy certificates that allow fossil fuel usage when renewables aren’t available.
Colocation with nuclear backing may offer a cost advantage for dedicated infrastructure versus the public cloud multi-tenancy premium. But you’ll need to run the numbers for your specific workload profile over a 3-5 year horizon.
What Timeline Should CTOs Use for Energy Strategy Planning?
Here’s the timeline that matters:
2028: Microsoft Azure Three Mile Island capacity operational (837 MW)—earliest enterprise access.
2030: Google Cloud first Kairos SMR unit online (50 MW). AWS Cascade facility construction underway but not operational. Mainstream nuclear-powered cloud starts here.
2030-2035: Google Cloud full 500 MW deployment across 6-7 reactors. AWS ramping toward 5 GW target. Nuclear transitions from premium to standard.
2035-2039: AWS achieving 5 GW capacity. Nuclear becomes baseline rather than exception.
But there are risk factors. SMR construction delays have historically averaged 12-18 months beyond projections. Regulatory approvals add 6-24 months of uncertainty. The only SMR design that progressed to committed utility customers—NuScale Power—was cancelled in 2023 due to rising costs.
Here’s a planning framework that accounts for these realities:
Maintain your current renewable-backed cloud through 2028. Evaluate Azure nuclear migration for appropriate workloads in 2028-2030. Plan for AWS or GCP nuclear transition in 2030-2032. Budget for full nuclear-powered infrastructure by 2035.
Avoid long-term contracts (3+ years) with non-nuclear providers if nuclear access aligns with your infrastructure refresh cycles. Maintain flexibility for a 2030-era migration. Don’t lock yourself into pricing or regions that prevent you from accessing nuclear when it arrives.
How Does Colocation with Nuclear-Backed Power Compare to Hyperscaler Cloud?
Colocation means you own or lease dedicated servers in a third-party data centre with contracted nuclear power supply. Hyperscaler cloud means shared infrastructure with nuclear power as a regional attribute.
Colocation requires upfront capital expenditure for hardware and 3-5 year power contracts. Hyperscaler cloud offers pay-as-you-go flexibility with no hardware ownership.
Colocation provides dedicated resources and power source transparency. Hyperscaler cloud abstracts infrastructure but limits visibility into energy sourcing.
FERC‘s December 2025 ruling ordered PJM Interconnection to develop transmission rules for colocated loads within 60 days. That’s being called a “major victory” for nuclear operators like Constellation Energy and Vistra.
Colocation advantages: guaranteed nuclear-backed power for sustainability reporting, potential cost savings for sustained high-utilisation workloads, and greater control for compliance requirements.
Hyperscaler advantages: no capital expenditure, elastic scaling, managed services, and broader geographic options as multiple nuclear facilities deploy.
Strategic fit depends on your workload profile. Colocation suits you if you’ve got predictable workloads, long-term capacity needs, and stringent sustainability verification requirements. Hyperscaler cloud is appropriate for variable workloads, rapid scaling needs, and if you value managed service capabilities.
Which Cloud Provider Offers the Best Nuclear Energy Strategy?
Each hyperscaler has taken a different approach to Big Tech investments in nuclear power. Microsoft Azure leads on timeline with the Three Mile Island restart in 2028. That’s 837 MW from a proven nuclear operator (Constellation Energy). It carries the lowest execution risk because they’re restarting an existing reactor rather than building new construction.
Google Cloud demonstrates technical innovation with the Kairos molten salt reactor partnership. The 500 MW across 6-7 units by 2035 represents genuine commitment to advanced SMR technology with established TVA utility relationships.
AWS commits the largest total capacity at 5 GW by 2039. It’s the longest timeline but offers the greatest ultimate scale.
Your vendor selection criteria should match your migration timeline and priorities:
Choose Azure for earliest access (2028-2030) and lowest risk through reactor restart strategy.
Choose Google for sustainability leadership (2030-2035) and advanced SMR technology.
Choose AWS for long-term capacity (2035+) and largest scale with 5 GW target.
Regional availability matters too. Azure is strongest in Pennsylvania and the mid-Atlantic. Google focuses on Tennessee and Alabama in the Southeast. AWS hasn’t disclosed its geographic strategy yet.
All three strategies carry execution uncertainty. Diversification across providers mitigates single-vendor dependency while complicating operations.
What Are the Sustainability and Compliance Implications?
Nuclear-powered cloud enables authentic 24/7 carbon-free energy claims. Compare that to renewable energy certificate accounting that allows fossil fuel usage when sun or wind is unavailable.
Baseload nuclear power provides continuous zero-carbon electricity matching actual consumption patterns. Renewables require grid backup—typically natural gas—when generation drops.
Carbon footprint reporting methodologies vary significantly. Direct nuclear power allocation gives you 24/7 carbon-free verification. Time-matching renewable purchases mean you’re buying renewable energy for the hours you consume it, but gaps exist. Annual renewable energy credits allow claiming carbon-free power even when actual electrons came from fossil fuels.
For regulatory compliance, genuine 24/7 carbon-free operation supports science-based targets more credibly than renewable offsets. As standards tighten, the difference between “we purchase renewable credits” and “our workloads run on 24/7 nuclear power” becomes meaningful.
Nuclear power carries different reputational dynamics than solar or wind. Some markets view nuclear positively as reliable clean energy. Others have concerns about safety and waste.
Early nuclear cloud adoption can differentiate your sustainability credentials from competitors using standard renewable approaches.
Nuclear project delays or cancellations undermine sustainability roadmap timelines. You need contingency planning with renewable alternatives.
How Should CTOs Plan for Nuclear-Powered Cloud Migration?
Start with workload assessment. AI training, high-performance computing, and sustained baseload applications benefit most from nuclear-powered infrastructure.
Here’s a phased approach:
Maintain current infrastructure through 2027 with renewable-backed cloud while planning the transition.
Pilot Azure nuclear regions in 2028-2029 when Three Mile Island capacity comes online. Validate performance and costs.
Scale Google or AWS nuclear in 2030-2032 as more capacity comes online.
Achieve full nuclear-powered operation by 2035 for workloads where it makes sense. Not everything needs nuclear power.
Migrate carbon-intensive always-on applications first. Variable workloads can remain on renewable-backed regions.
Avoid long-term contracts expiring mid-2030s that prevent nuclear migration. Negotiate flexibility clauses. Maintain multi-cloud optionality.
Assume a 0-10% cost premium for initial nuclear access in 2028-2030. Plan for potential cost reduction post-2035. But don’t bet on cost savings—position nuclear as a sustainability and reliability play.
Align nuclear migration with carbon reduction targets. Ensure nuclear availability supports compliance milestones with backup plans.
Communicate nuclear strategy uncertainty to executives. Position nuclear cloud as competitive advantage and sustainability leadership rather than cost optimisation.
FAQ
When will I be able to deploy workloads to nuclear-powered AWS regions?
AWS hasn’t disclosed specific regional availability timelines for nuclear-powered capacity. Based on the Cascade facility partnership and 5 GW target by 2039, meaningful enterprise access likely emerges in the 2030-2032 timeframe. Broader availability hits mid-to-late 2030s. Microsoft Azure (2028) and Google Cloud (2030) offer earlier nuclear access options.
Is nuclear-powered cloud computing more reliable than renewable-powered cloud?
Nuclear provides continuous baseload electricity 24/7 regardless of weather. Solar and wind require grid backup or battery storage. This translates to more predictable power sourcing but doesn’t directly impact cloud SLAs, which already account for power redundancy through diverse sources.
How much will nuclear power reduce my cloud computing costs?
Hyperscalers haven’t announced nuclear-specific pricing. Initial nuclear-powered cloud services will likely price at parity or a 5-10% premium to standard regions. As explained in our analysis of deployment economics, SMR levelised costs ($89-102/MWh) exceed wind/solar ($26-50/MWh). Potential cost reductions may emerge post-2035 as SMR deployment scales, but cost savings shouldn’t be your primary nuclear cloud adoption driver. Sustainability credibility and baseload reliability are stronger motivations.
Can small businesses access nuclear-powered cloud services or is it only for enterprises?
Nuclear-powered cloud regions will be available to all customers on standard hyperscaler platforms. AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud don’t restrict region access by company size. However, colocation facilities with direct nuclear power contracts typically require significant capacity commitments that favour larger enterprises. Small businesses can access nuclear-powered cloud through standard public cloud services without minimum commitments.
What happens if SMR construction is delayed and my planned nuclear cloud migration timeline is affected?
SMR delays are a real risk. Nuclear projects historically run 12-18 months behind schedule. Mitigation strategies: avoid contracts preventing region transfers, maintain relationships with multiple hyperscalers (Azure 2028, Google 2030, AWS 2030s), and retain flexibility for renewable-backed regions. Don’t make irreversible decisions dependent on nuclear availability until reactors approach commercial operation.
How do I verify my cloud workloads are actually running on nuclear power versus renewable energy certificates?
Hyperscalers will need transparency tools showing real-time or time-matched energy sourcing, similar to Google’s carbon-free energy percentage reporting. This differs from annual renewable energy certificate accounting that allows fossil fuel usage when renewables are unavailable. Demand contractual commitments for 24/7 carbon-free energy matching, not just annual renewable purchases.
Should my company wait for nuclear-powered cloud services or migrate to renewable-backed cloud now?
Migrate to renewable-backed cloud now unless your infrastructure refresh naturally aligns with nuclear availability (2028+ for Azure, 2030+ for Google/AWS). Delaying cloud adoption for 3-7 years sacrifices immediate benefits—scalability, managed services, cost optimisation. Plan for nuclear as a future migration target, not a reason to postpone cloud strategy. Exception: if you’re planning major infrastructure deployment in 2027-2028, Azure’s nuclear timing may justify short delays.
What’s the difference between nuclear-powered cloud and carbon-neutral cloud?
“Carbon-neutral cloud” typically means the provider purchases renewable energy credits or carbon offsets equal to annual electricity consumption. But they may use fossil fuel power when renewables are unavailable. “Nuclear-powered cloud” means your workloads run in data centres receiving continuous 24/7 carbon-free electricity from nuclear reactors. Nuclear provides authentic baseload zero-carbon power. Carbon-neutral relies on accounting mechanisms that may not reflect real-time energy sourcing.
How will FERC regulations affect my ability to use nuclear-powered data centre colocation?
FERC’s December 2025 ruling ordered PJM Interconnection to develop colocation rules within 60 days. It’s being described as a “major victory” for nuclear operators. This affects dedicated colocation deployments adjacent to nuclear facilities, not hyperscaler public cloud regions. If you’re considering direct nuclear colocation, monitor FERC proceedings and work with energy counsel.
Can I specify nuclear power as my energy source when deploying to AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud?
Not currently. Hyperscalers haven’t announced whether nuclear regions will be separately designated. The likely model: providers will designate specific regions as nuclear-powered (e.g., “Azure East US 4 – Nuclear”) and you deploy workloads there. Demand transparency in regional energy sourcing and contractual commitments for 24/7 carbon-free energy matching.
What contracts or agreements are needed to access nuclear-powered cloud services?
For hyperscaler public cloud, standard service agreements will likely cover nuclear regions without separate contracts. For dedicated colocation, expect multi-year power purchase agreements (3-5 years) with minimum capacity commitments. You’ll need legal and energy procurement expertise. Negotiate service level agreements specifying energy source transparency and 24/7 carbon-free energy guarantees.
How do nuclear-powered cloud services support my company’s science-based climate targets?
Science-based targets increasingly require 24/7 carbon-free energy matching rather than annual renewable certificate accounting. Nuclear power provides continuous zero-carbon electricity supporting these rigorous standards. For SBTi compliance, nuclear-powered cloud offers stronger evidence of actual emission reductions compared to renewable-backed cloud using RECs. Nuclear eliminates fossil fuel backup requirements.
The Bottom Line
Big Tech’s nuclear strategy represents the largest shift in data centre energy since the renewable energy commitments of the 2010s. The cost implications won’t be fully clear until SMRs either prove themselves or fail at commercial scale in the early 2030s.
What you can act on now: nuclear power offers genuine advantages for AI workloads and 24/7 operations through higher capacity factors, smaller physical footprints, and true carbon-free generation. These advantages will command premium pricing from hyperscalers who need to amortise billions in upfront capital costs.
Your strategic imperatives are contractual flexibility, workload segmentation, and geographic positioning. Take advantage of nuclear power as it comes online—without overpaying for technology that doesn’t yet exist at commercial scale.
The nuclear renaissance in cloud computing is real, but it’s still largely in the future. Your energy strategy needs to bridge the gap between today’s reality and that future possibility. Don’t bet everything on execution timelines nuclear projects have historically struggled to meet.
