Microsoft and Three Mile Island. "What can go wrong?"
Admittedly, that's a somewhat cheap shot based on reputation.

There are talks about building mini nuclear reactors near these data centers. What can go wrong?

A decent mix of information with this program, IMHO.
Wall Street Week, December 12, 2025

I started to Google, "where are the nuclear reactors near my zip code", and thought better of it. lol. Seems like a great way to get on a no-fly-list.

Article states that China's nuclear ambitions far outpacing the rest of the world.
Comment section of the article is worth a read.

Actually, the United States is the global leader in the construction of cheap, safe, powerful nuclear reactors. They just happen to all be owned and operated by the United States Navy (563 reactors over the past 75 years, at last count.) So if the Navy and China can build reactors, but US power companies can't, we should probably look at why that is.
One obvious reason seems to be that neither the US Navy, nor the Chinese nuclear program needs to satisfy shareholders. Since they don't have to constantly cut costs to drive up stock price, they can instead focus on good design and safe operation. (I would have loved to see a Navy bean counter try to tell Admiral Rickover that there wasn't any money in the budget for something he wanted.)
It's unrestrained capitalism that causes the problem, not the technology.

https://nytimes.com/interactive/2025/10/22/climate/china-us-nuclear-energy-race.html

Good points. The other problem (besides spent fuel) is that the public doesn't trust nuclear power generation. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc spooked everyone pretty good. Few people would want it near their neighborhood. Maybe it is a problem with education, or trust?

Article states that China's nuclear ambitions far outpacing the rest of the world.
Comment section of the article is worth a read.

Actually, the United States is the global leader in the construction of cheap, safe, powerful nuclear reactors. They just happen to all be owned and operated by the United States Navy (563 reactors over the past 75 years, at last count.) So if the Navy and China can build reactors, but US power companies can't, we should probably look at why that is.
One obvious reason seems to be that neither the US Navy, nor the Chinese nuclear program needs to satisfy shareholders. Since they don't have to constantly cut costs to drive up stock price, they can instead focus on good design and safe operation. (I would have loved to see a Navy bean counter try to tell Admiral Rickover that there wasn't any money in the budget for something he wanted.)
It's unrestrained capitalism that causes the problem, not the technology.

https://nytimes.com/interactive/2025/10/22/climate/china-us-nuclear-energy-race.html

Drive I-70 across Kansas and eastern Colorado (deep red areas) and you will see wind turbine farms, agricultural farms, and ranches functioning together. Many ranchers/farmers have local wind turbines and/or solar arrays to provide electricity for the neighborhood as well. The "wind or solar destroying farmer" comment is nonsense, yet another vindictive action by the orange snake oil salesman (who depends upon ignorance) to undo past decisions in favor of the ridiculously underhanded and desperate coal lobby.
Nevada, a valuable farming mecca? How will a 13x14 sq mile solar array near Vegas affect America's hay, onion and potato market (Nevada's primary crops, mostly located in northern Nevada!)? No ideas on how they could function together? Nevada is known for SUNSHINE and drought and past nuclear testing. What could we do with that area to positively benefit this country? Hmmmm...The logic of this administration (and those that put them there) is baffling.

Right now, China produces more air pollution than the rest of the world combined
What's the definition of "air polution"? For example, China is responsible for "only" 30.1% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (2023 data; see Table 1 on p. 10 of this 2024 EU report)
I'm not minimizing the seriousness of the problem. From the data I've seen (I'm currently taking a course in environmental politics), we've already passed the 1.5°C threshold. I just like to understand what numbers mean when they're bandied about. Does the size of Manhattan really matter? After all, it's only half the size of San Francisco. 23 sq miles vs. 46 sq miles, though I couldn't tell you whether that counts only land area or includes surrounding water.
And the EU considers fossil gas (i.e. methane, a GHG) and nuclear power to be "sustainable energy". As of 2022. Definitions matter.
https://www.politico.eu/article/top-european-court-rules-nuclear-power-green/

I have long been convinced that gold and other "hard assets" are a compelling investment, because they were ignored and despised for so long.
Gold provides a pretty good counterweight against currency devaluation and inflation.
Do you really think that with rising population, climate change, increasing temperatures agricultural prices will stay low for long? Uranium and other nuclear power components have turned around, as have rare earths.
You can get exposure with natural resources funds, futures or ETFs but natural resource funds and gold funds are probably the best ways to go.

#2 Here are the major details of the agreement:
Tariff rate: A 15% tariff will be imposed on most EU goods imported into the US, including automobiles, semiconductors, and pharmaceutical goods. This is a reduction from the previously threatened 30% tariff rate.
EU commitments:
Energy Purchases: The EU has agreed to purchase $750 billion worth of American energy, specifically liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nuclear fuel over three years. This is intended to help reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas.
Investment: The EU will invest an additional $600 billion in the US on top of existing expenditures.
Market Access: The EU has agreed to open its markets to US exporters with zero tariffs on certain products.
Military Equipment: The EU has also committed to purchasing "vast amounts" of US military equipment.
Exclusions:
Steel and Aluminum: The existing 50% tariffs on European steel and aluminum will remain in place, though there are suggestions they could be replaced by a quota system in the future.
Pharmaceuticals: Pharmaceuticals are also excluded from the 15% tariff, and their tariff rate will be determined globally, according to von der Leyen.
Zero Tariffs: Specific products like all aircraft and component parts, certain chemicals, certain generic drugs, semiconductor equipment, some agricultural products, natural resources, and critical raw materials will have zero tariffs.
Wine and spirits: The tariff rate for wine and spirits is yet to be determined.

@catch22
Thanks for the detailed information.
I've read WSJ and Reuters articles regarding the EU agreement.
Much of their information corresponds with what you have posted (quoted above).
Energy Purchases: Dollar amounts are the same. Energy sources were unspecified.
Market Access: "Trump also said the EU had agreed 'to open up their countries to trade at zero tariff.' Von der Leyen said the two had agreed to zero-for-zero tariffs for certain strategic products including aircrafts and their parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment and certain agricultural products, among others, and said the two sides would work to add more products to that list." (WSJ)
Military Equipment: Military equipment wasn't mentioned specifically in either article.
Steel and Aluminum: "Trump indicated in comments to the press that his global steel-and-aluminum tariffs, which are currently at 50%, would remain unchanged. Von der Leyen said the two had agreed to a quota system that would keep tariffs lower for some EU metals exports to the U.S." (WSJ)
Pharmaceuticals: Von der Leyen said that 15% tariffs will apply to pharmaceuticals according to both articles.
Zero Tariffs: Reuters reported the same information (almost verbatim).
Wine and spirits: Von der Leyen: "'We will keep working to add more products to this list,' she said, adding that the situation on spirits was still to be established." (Reuters)
The EU trade agreement resembles the Japan agreement.
We still have not reached trade agreements with several of our largest trading partners:
Mexico, Canada, and China.
U.S. and Chinese officials are meeting in Stockholm on Monday and Tuesday—
it's anticipated that their trade truce will be extended beyond the Aug. 12 expiration date.

I did two searches for the EU US tariff deal using slightly different wording. The results are below with some redundancy.
#1 A trade deal between the US and EU was announced with a 15% tariff on most European goods imported to the US. The deal also involves the EU agreeing to purchase $750 billion of American energy and increase investment in the US by over $600 billion. Steel and aluminum tariffs were not included in this deal and remain at 50%.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
15% Tariff: Most European goods exported to the US will now face a 15% tariff.
Energy and Investment: The EU agreed to purchase $750 billion of American energy and increase investment in the US by more than $600 billion.
No Tariffs on Some Goods: Some goods, including pharmaceuticals, will not be subject to tariffs.
Steel and Aluminum: The 50% tariff on steel and aluminum remains in place.
Temporary Resolution: The agreement temporarily resolves months of tense negotiations between the two trade partners.
"Big One": President Trump described this deal as "the biggest of them all".
EU Concessions: The EU agreed to accept US imports without tariffs.
"Rebalancing" Trade: The agreement aims to "rebalance" trade between the US and EU.
#2 Here are the major details of the agreement:
Tariff rate: A 15% tariff will be imposed on most EU goods imported into the US, including automobiles, semiconductors, and pharmaceutical goods. This is a reduction from the previously threatened 30% tariff rate.
EU commitments:
Energy Purchases: The EU has agreed to purchase $750 billion worth of American energy, specifically liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nuclear fuel over three years. This is intended to help reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas.
Investment: The EU will invest an additional $600 billion in the US on top of existing expenditures.
Market Access: The EU has agreed to open its markets to US exporters with zero tariffs on certain products.
Military Equipment: The EU has also committed to purchasing "vast amounts" of US military equipment.
Exclusions:
Steel and Aluminum: The existing 50% tariffs on European steel and aluminum will remain in place, though there are suggestions they could be replaced by a quota system in the future.
Pharmaceuticals: Pharmaceuticals are also excluded from the 15% tariff, and their tariff rate will be determined globally, according to von der Leyen.
Zero Tariffs: Specific products like all aircraft and component parts, certain chemicals, certain generic drugs, semiconductor equipment, some agricultural products, natural resources, and critical raw materials will have zero tariffs.
Wine and spirits: The tariff rate for wine and spirits is yet to be determined.
This deal is seen as a way to bring stability and predictability to the transatlantic trade relationship and prevent a potentially damaging trade war. However, it's important to note that the agreement is still preliminary and further details need to be finalized. It is also worth noting that the 15% tariff rate is still significantly higher than the 2.5% that applied before the Trump administration took office.
Lastly, the Japan and EU deals both indicate $600 billion each investments into the U.S. over a period of years. We shall find what becomes of this, eh?

What is Nuclear Energy?
Discussion of How Nuclear Power Plants Work with a few illustrations
Another excellent presentation with illustrations

On a recent trip to China, I observed from a couple of high-speed trains (the equal of Europe's) many convex cooling towers of nuclear reactors just about everywhere. I do fear that were there an adverse event that the Chinese authorities would not be forthcoming regarding the severity of the problem. Chernobyl is a text-book case in how an authoritarian system can compound (murderously) the effects of a disaster, simply by acting authoritarian and closed-mouthed. See Adam Higginbotham, Midnight at Chernobyl (2019).
Westinghouse also manufactured some of the first refrigerators. My great uncle possessed one of the very first models (maybe from 1925) and the company recognized his fridge as one of the longest living. It was still functioning in the mid-1950's, a box on legs with its cylindrical cooling coils mounted on top of the whole shebang. It was so ugly that it had to be put out of sight in a pantry. Not that the radio @hank found would have won any beauty contest.

@hank- One Source
...and a very good one, too.

One source
Excerpts: “According to the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there are (in 1924) 413 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide with an average age of around 32 years.”
”Nuclear energy accounts for the largest percentage of the global electricity mix in France. In 2022 it was 63%. With 56 reactors, France is also the European leader in this respect. However, the last reactor was connected to the grid in 1999 and the average age is 38.6 years. “
-

”Someone explain, please? How playing with nukes for power is a different sort of playing with nukes for weapons? Still gotta be radioactive waste produced, eh?”

We’ve had several that operated in Michigan dating back to the late 50s. Most have been dismantled. Like everything technological, they have a limited life-span. In simplest terms, fission reactions (the splitting of atoms) in a controlled environment create heat which is then converted into electricity. The early ones were “boiling water” types with the steam produced powering large turbine generators. I suspect they’ve advanced beyond that simple concept today.
You are correct that waste is created. It can be safely handled and stored, but remains “hot” (highly radioactive) for thousands of years. There has been fierce debate over how to safely dispose of the waste. Deep inside mountains has been proposed. I’m not up to speed on whether this at has been resolved. For now, I believe waste is pretty much stored on-site and shielded somehow. But it’s not a long term solution.
Accidents are rare. Loss of cooling water is the biggest threat. So these plants are typically located near bodies of water and backup electrical energy is crucial to power the coolant pumps in the event the primary sources fail. The reactors themselves are very small - perhaps smaller than a typical room in a home. Most of what one sees in photos is the supporting equipment, surrounding containment vessels, heat dispersion / cooling apparatus. While accidents are rare they are monstrous when they occur with deadly long lasting contaminants being spread over hundreds or thousands of miles - rendering farmland, water sources, homes, unusable virtually forever and causing illness or death to those contaminated. It’s this last “nightmare” possibility (and some actual catastrophic events) that has made nuclear power generation so controversial and has slowed the development of new plants. Planning must take into consideration potential threats like floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, acts of war and terrorism.
Key differences from weapons are (1) In generating electrical power, the nuclear fission process is controlled. It can be shut-down if necessary by the plant operators, assuming everything is working correctly, (2) The radiation produced is contained within a structure and not dispersed intentionally into the environment, (3) Rather then blowing something up, the power released is converted into useful electricity..
See also Nuclear Powered Ships

Wiki has head spinning adventures / misadventures of Westinghouse. The name still exists in several venues.
And more than just making some radios, it started RCA (originally, the Radio Corporation of America) that was the hot in-stock of its era.
Westinghouse Nuclear is now owned by BBU/BN (Canadian Brookfield).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Corporation

will inform them regarding your concern. already powering half of all nuclear in america.
"About half of the U.S. nuclear fleet (approximately 60 operating plants) uses technology originally developed or licensed by Westinghouse, including both direct builds and technology transfers."

the 'problem' with nuclear energy is not technology, as it should out-rate any current competitor based on power/cost/risk/footprint. in democracies, the problem is politics, and in authoritarian nations, the problem is safety\oversight.
i.e., like with with any truly meaningful tech, its humans that are the problem.

Westinghouse makes nuclear power reactors that are far from nuclear weapons (typically shortened as "nukes"). The sentiment for nuclear power has changed in the US too and more large or small SMRs will be built. However, many more are being built overseas.
I am in the Chicago area and almost 33% of the power generation here is nuclear via a long and twisted history of Com Ed-->Exelon/EXC-->Constellation Energy/CEG spinoff that's a hot stock now with 19 GW nuclear power capacity.
Uranium enrichment required for "nukes" is far higher then what is needed for nuclear power fuel.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/15/westinghouse-plans-to-build-10-large-nuclear-reactors-in-us-interim-ceo-tells-trump-.html
Mutants for Nukes! Anyone can join the fraternity. C'mon in! Has anyone seen my spare ear? Liver? Tongue?