<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=429271514207517&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">

Discover how TIME’s Top Greentech Companies are seen (or missed) by AI-driven platforms including ChatGPT. View the report ➡️

Skip to content

Scaling Clean Podcast

Episode 48: Thomas Jam Pedersen, CEO of Copenhagen Atomics

September 23, 2025

 

Scaling Clean: Thomas Jam Pedersen on Building a Nuclear Startup in Europe

How Copenhagen Atomics is using recycled nuclear waste and thorium to build a new generation of molten salt reactors, and a funding model to match.

Thomas Jam Pedersen, the CEO of Copenhagen Atomics, is developing compact molten salt reactors fueled by recycled nuclear waste and thorium for greater efficiency and scalability.

Thomas joined me on Scaling Clean to talk about what it really takes to lead a nuclear startup in Europe, a region that hasn’t always made life easy for entrepreneurs in new technologies. What struck me most was his candor about both the technical breakthroughs Copenhagen Atomics is pursuing and the business realities of funding a company in such a long-cycle industry.

Europe’s Difficult Innovation Climate

(15:05) Thomas doesn’t sugarcoat the challenges. He describes how Europe has wrestled with economic stagnation and even hostility to new technologies over the past decade. While countries like Norway and Poland have fared better thanks to oil and gas exports, the broader environment has been difficult for innovators in fields like nuclear.

For Copenhagen Atomics, that has meant looking beyond Europe for its growth story. Thomas envisions the company’s future production and sales happening mostly abroad, while still maintaining a research and development footprint in Denmark.

It’s a striking reminder that policy and economics are just as important as technology in determining where innovation flourishes.

Energy as the Foundation of Prosperity

(16:32) Thomas also makes a compelling case for why the stakes are so high. Energy isn’t just another sector of the economy. It’s the foundation of every product we use and every industry that grows.

China and India have seized this opportunity, rapidly scaling every form of energy generation to secure their industrial advantage. Today, China dominates in energy-intensive industries such as aluminum, steel, and ammonia, industries that power global supply chains.

Europe, on the other hand, risks losing ground in areas like EV manufacturing and agriculture if it cannot secure low-cost, reliable energy. 

This broader framing, that energy is the enabler of prosperity, helps explain why Copenhagen Atomics is betting on small, modular reactors as a way to give industries affordable, sustainable power at scale.

Funding a Nuclear Startup vs. Software

(19:50) Thomas had an interesting perspective on raising capital.

Most venture investors are trained in the rhythm of software: scale fast, acquire customers quickly, and exit in about 10 years. Nuclear doesn’t fit that model. It’s closer to pharmaceuticals, with decades-long development cycles and a far heavier lift in R&D and regulation.

Copenhagen Atomics knew it couldn’t survive by relying only on repeated funding rounds that eventually wear down investors. Instead, the company designed a model to generate early revenue streams, a way to keep money flowing in while the long-term reactor technology matures.

By selling test systems, reactor salts, and now lithium-6 and lithium-7, Copenhagen Atomics established steady collaborations with universities, labs, and industry partners worldwide, proving their ability to grow revenue even before commercial reactors come online.

That strategy has already reassured investors, and the company projects $50 million in annual revenue by 2028, with a demonstration reactor expected in 2027. Thomas believes this will multiply the company’s valuation tenfold and give investors confidence that Copenhagen Atomics is built for the long haul.

It’s a bold funding model, and one that could become a template for other startups trying to bridge the gap between visionary science and real-world business.

Why This Conversation Matters

For me, this episode uncovers two things:

  • The future of energy isn’t just about new technology. It’s about savvy business models. Copenhagen Atomics shows that innovation in finance and funding can be just as important as innovation in physics.
  • Leadership in long-cycle industries requires a unique mindset. Patience, resilience, and the ability to reassure investors for decades are critical skills.

Note - in this episode, Thomas mentions an article he wrote where he predicts how much energy different sectors will consume by 2050, noting that AI will experience the largest growth in energy demand. Here is the link.

Listen to the full conversation on Apple, Spotify, Radio Public, Amazon Music, and iHeart.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

Introduction

Melissa Baldwin:

Welcome back, cleantechers. My guest today is a bit of an outlier. Thomas Jam Pedersen is the CEO of Copenhagen Atomics, a Danish startup developing compact molten salt reactors powered by recycled nuclear waste.

Copenhagen Atomics has invented a new type of reactor that uses thorium in a different way, making it more efficient. Since 2020, the company has grown from four founders to a team of nearly 70 people.

They have already begun generating revenue by supplying highly purified salt for reactor test loops. We are excited to have Thomas bring his expertise to Scaling Clean. Welcome to the show, Thomas.

All right, let’s get started. I’m going to ask you a few questions about your career journey, but first, could you tell our listeners a bit about Copenhagen Atomics and what makes your company different?

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

Yes. We were four people who started the company more than 10 years ago. In the beginning, we had an idea, more of a strong intuition or gut feeling, that it might be possible to build a new type of nuclear reactor that is much more efficient than current nuclear reactors. That includes what are typically called advanced reactors and small modular reactors.

We also believed it could produce energy at a lower cost than fusion ever will.

Of course, in the beginning, we were not certain whether it would actually work. So we carried out extensive simulations, calculations, and engineering studies to evaluate the concept.

By the spring of 2022, we reached a point where we knew the concept was viable. The new idea actually worked.

Since then, we have shifted into a new phase focused on building the first demonstration reactor. After that, the plan is to move toward constructing the first commercial reactors.

At this stage, we have already completed the main design phase.

SMR vs MSR: Copenhagen Atomics Explains the Difference in Nuclear Reactor Technology

Melissa Baldwin:

I often hear about small modular reactors, or SMRs, in the news. What makes your technology different from an SMR?

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

You are correct that the term SMR stands for small modular reactor. However, the term has been used in so many different ways that it is no longer very precise.

Some very large reactors are described using this term. Some reactors that are not actually modular also use it. Even what used to be called microreactors, which are extremely small reactors with relatively high costs, are now sometimes labeled as SMRs.

Because of that, the term has become somewhat vague. In many cases, it simply means a nuclear reactor rather than referring to a specific type of design.

I think this happened because the term gained popularity in mainstream media, and many people began using it without fully understanding the technical definition. Over time, the phrase was repeated so often that it lost its original meaning.

My expectation is that the term may fade out over the next few years because it does not accurately describe a specific technology anymore.

There are other technical terms that are more precise. For example, microreactors usually refer to reactors that produce less than 10 megawatts of electrical power. Another commonly used term is advanced reactors, which generally refers to designs that differ from traditional light-water reactors. I believe that term will continue to be used in the future.

The nuclear industry has many specialized terms, and for people outside the field it can be very confusing.

The reactor we are building is called a molten salt reactor, often abbreviated as MSR. The similarity between the abbreviations MSR and SMR can easily cause confusion, so I completely understand why people mix them up.

Melissa Baldwin:

Yes, I would definitely count myself among those who get confused by the terminology. I'm glad we clarified the difference between an MSR and an SMR.

I would like to explore another point with you. Scaling Clean focuses on clean technology, especially renewables like solar and wind. Some people in our audience may be skeptical about nuclear energy.

What would you say to those listeners about your technology and why you believe it is different or beneficial?

The Nuclear Debate: Safety, Regulation, and Public Perception

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

There are many things to unpack here, and I’m not sure we can cover all of them. Let me highlight a few key points.

The majority of people around the world believe that nuclear energy is dangerous. That perception is unfortunate because it is not supported by the evidence.

If you look at nuclear energy and examine the number of people it has caused to die historically, it is actually one of the safest technologies we have. Even when something goes very wrong, such as the Chernobyl disaster, the number of fatalities is relatively small compared with many other energy sources.

Most people who die within the nuclear industry are not killed by reactors or radiation. They are killed in activities like mining or construction work. These are the same types of risks present when building any large power plant or industrial facility.

However, public perception is often very different. Much of the traditional media has promoted the narrative that nuclear energy is dangerous, even though the data does not support that conclusion.

For example, only one person died directly from radiation exposure during the Fukushima accident. However, authorities evacuated approximately 150,000 people from the surrounding area. Around 2,000 people later died as a result of that evacuation, often due to the disruption of their lives, loss of employment, and related stress.

Those deaths were not caused by radiation or nuclear technology itself. They were the result of policy decisions made by authorities, which is unfortunate.

At the same time, nuclear power plants are subject to extremely strict regulations. There are far fewer regulations governing activities such as mining, building construction, or evacuation policies, even though those activities can also lead to fatalities.

The nuclear sector operates under exceptionally tight safety rules governing how reactors are designed, built, and operated. That level of regulation is one of the main reasons nuclear energy can be so expensive.

Critics often say that nuclear power is slow and costly. In many cases, that is true, but it is largely due to the regulatory environment. In my view, some of these regulations are unnecessarily restrictive.

I believe this situation will begin to change over the next decade or two. There is growing willingness around the world to reconsider nuclear energy and evaluate how it can be deployed in a safer, more efficient way.

If approached properly, nuclear energy can provide reliable and clean electricity while minimizing risks to people and the environment.

Melissa Baldwin:

And could you give me one of the things I noticed when I was researching your company, is that you talk about how you were able to reduce the timeline on waste. Could you quickly explain that for our listeners?

Nuclear Fuel Recycling: Getting 10x More Energy from Spent Fuel

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

Yes, that is true. There has long been a goal in the nuclear industry to find better ways to use spent fuel from traditional light water reactors. Today there are about 440 nuclear reactors operating around the world, and most of them are light water reactors.

Unfortunately, the way these reactors use fuel is not very efficient. They typically extract only about one or two percent of the total energy contained in the fuel. After that, the fuel is labeled as spent fuel, and some people even describe it as dangerous waste. In reality, that description is somewhat misleading.

For many years, there has been discussion about placing this spent fuel deep underground in storage facilities. That approach is very expensive, and it is often presented as the only long-term solution. However, that is not necessarily the best approach.

To use a simple analogy, imagine putting gasoline into your car but only burning two percent of it before throwing away the remaining ninety-eight percent. That would clearly be wasteful. Instead, you would want to find a way to use the remaining energy.

This idea has motivated researchers in the nuclear industry for decades. Many people have explored ways to design reactors that can reuse the remaining energy in spent nuclear fuel. That is also why very few countries have actually placed their spent fuel permanently underground. Most governments understand that the material still contains significant energy that could potentially be reused.

The challenge has always been whether we can reuse that fuel efficiently and economically. Existing recycling methods have struggled to achieve that balance.

At the moment, France is the only country that actively recycles a significant portion of its nuclear fuel. However, the process they use is not very economical, so it is often pursued more for strategic or political reasons than for financial efficiency.

With our type of reactor, we believe it is possible to extract up to ten times more energy from the fuel that has already been used once. That represents a significant improvement both economically and environmentally.

It means we could dramatically reduce the need for new uranium mining. Instead, we could reuse the large quantities of spent fuel that already exist. In many cases, those materials could potentially supply energy for thousands of years.

However, the regulatory framework for reusing nuclear fuel is still very complex. It will likely take decades before large-scale recycling becomes widely adopted.

As energy demand continues to grow, especially with technologies like artificial intelligence requiring massive amounts of electricity, it will become increasingly important to find efficient ways to reuse the resources we already have.

In fact, it is possible that by 2050, we could still be using the nuclear fuel that has already been produced and stored today.

Melissa Baldwin:

I would like to shift the conversation now and talk more about your personal journey. Let’s start with your background. How did you get to where you are today? What path led you to the role of CEO?

From Engineer to Energy Innovator: Thomas Jam Pedersen’s Path to CEO

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

I have always been very good at tinkering with things. Even when I was around 10 years old, I was fascinated by how technology worked. That curiosity eventually led me to pursue an engineering career, and I earned a degree in electrical engineering.

At that time, software engineering was not widely recognized as its own engineering discipline. However, during my studies in the 1990s, I took as many software engineering courses as I could. In practice, I ended up working more like a software engineer, even though my diploma says electrical engineer. The two fields are closely connected.

After graduating, I spent many years working with software development, mathematical modeling, and simulations. Those skills ultimately led me to become involved in this project.

I have always been interested in how humanity can achieve a prosperous society and a good quality of life. Energy is essential to prosperity. Without abundant energy, modern society cannot function.

Today, around 80 percent of global energy still comes from fossil fuels. That needs to change, whether the motivation is environmental concerns, concerns about carbon emissions, or simply the fact that fossil resources are finite. We also want to avoid conflicts over access to oil, coal, and gas.

Regardless of the reason, we need alternative energy sources. It became clear to me that nuclear energy will play an important role in the future. When I think about the future, I often think in terms of the next hundred years.

I also spent some time exploring fusion energy concepts. By that stage, I had already worked as an engineer for about 20 years.

In addition, I had experience in the startup ecosystem. I was involved in several software startups and even spent time living in Silicon Valley. That environment exposed me to innovation, entrepreneurship, and startup funding.

Eventually, I joined forces with the other three founders of Copenhagen Atomics. I applied my experience in simulations, engineering, and energy systems to the project.

I am very proud that together we developed a new concept for a reactor core that is significantly more efficient than the traditional nuclear reactors that have been built over the past 80 years.

Melissa Baldwin:

So you essentially combined your background in engineering, tinkering, and startups to grow into the leadership role you have today. 

From Sailing to Mass Manufacturing: The Mentors Behind a Nuclear CEO

Melissa Baldwin:

Let’s talk about the people who influenced you along the way. Who were two or three of your most important mentors, and what do you remember about them?

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

One influence came very early in my life. When I was a teenager, I spent a lot of time sailing, and I had mentors in that environment.

Sailing taught me many lessons that shaped who I am today. When you are a young sailor, you go out on the ocean knowing that the sea can be dangerous. You learn to respect nature, understand the weather, and handle challenging situations calmly. Those experiences build confidence and resilience.

Another person who influenced me was William S. Knudsen. He played a major role in developing mass manufacturing techniques for companies like Ford Motor Company and General Motors.

Knudsen was instrumental in building modern assembly line systems. Later, during the Second World War, he helped organize large-scale manufacturing of aircraft, weapons, and other critical equipment.

He was originally from Denmark but moved to the United States at a young age, around 19 years old, in the late 19th century. He spent most of his life in the United States and passed away shortly after the end of the Second World War.

His work in large-scale manufacturing and industrial efficiency had a significant impact on how modern production systems operate.

Melissa Baldwin:

I can definitely see that influence reflected in your technology. When I watched some of your company’s videos, I noticed that you are designing these reactors to be modular and repeatable. That approach helps bring down costs, correct?

Let me ask one more question about your career journey. If you could go back to when you started the company in 2020, what advice would you give to your younger self?

Choosing the Right Geography: Lessons from Building a Nuclear Startup

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

The number one piece of advice I would give is not to start a nuclear company in Europe.

Unfortunately, over the past ten years, while we were building this company, Europe has moved in a direction that feels somewhat like a step backward. Many European countries are currently experiencing economic stagnation or recession. Norway is an exception because it continues to benefit from oil and gas revenues, and Poland is also experiencing growth. However, much of the rest of Europe is struggling economically and is often hesitant toward new technologies.

Despite these challenges, we have found ways to move forward. Our company and our reactor concept are designed to operate internationally. The reactors we develop will eventually be deployed in many countries around the world.

I do expect that, over time, we will sell reactors in Europe as well. However, in the early stages, most of our deployments will likely occur outside Europe.

We will probably maintain a strong presence in Europe, particularly in Denmark, where research and development will continue. But manufacturing and the majority of our reactor installations will likely take place in other regions.

Melissa Baldwin:

I’m curious, and perhaps I’m opening Pandora’s box here, but you mentioned the economic challenges in Europe. At the same time, we are seeing significant energy policy debates in the United States as well.

Why do you think this situation exists, and what kinds of energy policies could help countries avoid economic decline? 

Energy and Prosperity: Why the Future Belongs to High-Power Economies

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

Energy is part of every product we use. If we look back 200 years and compare how much energy people used then with how much people in the Western world use today, the difference is enormous. It is not just double or quadruple the amount. It is closer to one hundred times more energy per person.

Even extremely wealthy individuals continue to demand more energy because energy is the foundation of prosperity.

If we want to maintain a prosperous society in the future, energy supply must grow. Today we are also seeing how technologies like artificial intelligence require enormous amounts of electricity.

Many smart people around the world believe that global energy consumption could eventually increase tenfold compared with current levels. That places a tremendous burden on global energy production.

This is exactly the problem our company is trying to solve.

One reason Europe may be struggling economically is that some policymakers argue that society should reduce energy consumption. However, reducing energy consumption typically means reducing economic growth, productivity, and overall prosperity.

I do not believe that strategy will succeed long-term. Eventually, political and economic pressures will force changes. That could take the form of new policies, political shifts, or broader economic adjustments over the next five years or so.

Meanwhile, countries such as China, India, and the United States are experiencing rapid growth in energy demand. Part of that growth is driven by artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure.

China provides a clear example. Because it has had access to relatively low-cost energy over the past two decades, it now produces roughly 70 percent of the world’s aluminum. That means China could dominate the manufacturing of electric vehicles in the future.

If Europe and the United States cannot produce aluminum competitively, their automotive industries could face serious challenges.

Aluminum is not only used in electric vehicles. It is also essential for construction, aircraft manufacturing, and even solar installations.

Today, approximately 70 percent of the world’s aluminum production and around 60 percent of global steel production occur in China. That level of industrial concentration has major implications for global manufacturing competitiveness.

We are already seeing the impact of high energy costs in Europe, where many industries are struggling to remain competitive.

Melissa Baldwin:

Yes, I have heard that the chemical industry is also struggling because of high energy costs.

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

That is correct. Industries such as chemicals and ammonia production require large amounts of low-cost energy. That is exactly the type of energy we aim to provide through Copenhagen Atomics.

Melissa Baldwin:

That is a great point. You also mentioned the rapid energy demand growth in countries like India and China.

Let’s move to another topic. I would like to talk about startups and fundraising. Your company has been operating for about ten years, and you have gone through several fundraising rounds. It appears you recently completed a Series B round.

What was that experience like, and what advice would you give to startups that are trying to attract investor attention?

Fundraising and Revenue: Building a Nuclear Startup for the Long Term

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

First of all, raising money for a nuclear startup is very different from raising money for a software company or similar businesses. I have been involved in several startups before, and many technologies have much shorter development cycles.

Typically, in those industries, you build the company, reach customers, and potentially sell the company within about ten years. From starting with nothing to reaching a valuation of more than a billion dollars and exiting, everything is expected to happen within that time frame.

That timeline simply does not work for nuclear or fusion companies. These industries require much longer development cycles. In that sense, they are more similar to pharmaceutical companies that must go through regulatory approval processes with agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Those processes can easily take more than ten years, sometimes even twenty.

For nuclear and fusion companies, the timeline can be even longer. In our case, we expect the company to continue growing well beyond 2050, and we will likely continue raising funding throughout that entire period.

This long-term funding model was something we had to think carefully about in the early stages. We needed to understand what the journey of raising capital over several decades would look like.

Because we are based in Denmark and the Danish government is unlikely to provide significant funding support for nuclear projects, we realized that we needed to create revenue early in the company’s life cycle. That meant generating income even before we had commercial reactors operating.

That is why we began selling test systems and specialized salts to other organizations in the nuclear industry. This approach has also created valuable collaborations with other companies, universities, and national laboratories around the world.

Another reason this strategy is important is that many of our competitors rely entirely on venture funding. They raise a funding round, perhaps a Series B, which gives them enough capital for two years. When that money runs out, they must raise the next round or risk shutting down.

You might be able to succeed with that approach three or four times in a row, but it becomes very difficult to repeat that cycle over decades without major risks.

That is why having a revenue stream is critical. We have demonstrated to investors that we can continue growing our revenue while developing the core technology.

Our projections currently show that we could reach approximately 50 million dollars in annual revenue by 2028, even before any commercial reactors are operating.

We are also beginning to sell isotopes such as Lithium-6 and Lithium-7. We have already secured our first contracts, although deliveries have not yet started. Once those deliveries begin, they will contribute additional revenue.

Beyond that, we have several other products in development that can generate income. This roadmap allows us to show investors how revenue can continue to grow over time.

Eventually, of course, we need to demonstrate a working reactor. Our plan is to complete the first demonstration reactor around 2027. This reactor will not yet supply power to the electrical grid, but it will demonstrate that the technology works and can be approved by regulators.

At that point, we expect the company’s valuation to increase significantly, potentially by a factor of ten. Combined with achieving around 50 million dollars in annual revenue, this would represent a strong milestone for our investors.

Investors can look three or four years ahead and see the potential for their shares to grow substantially in value. That helps maintain confidence among existing investors and also attracts new investors who want to participate in the company’s long-term growth.

Melissa Baldwin:

That makes sense. Investors can see a near-term opportunity to grow their investment. Building those temporary revenue streams while working toward the larger product is a very smart approach.

Let me ask another question that we ask every guest. In your experience, does success depend more on what a company chooses to do or what it chooses not to do?

Success Over Time: The Discipline of Saying No

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

That is a great question. I believe it is extremely important for a CEO, founder, or key team member to learn how to say no and deselect certain opportunities.

Even in our company, we sometimes start projects that initially seem promising. After a few months or perhaps half a year, we review those projects carefully. If we conclude that a project will not create significant value, we stop it.

Being disciplined about stopping projects that are not working is an essential part of long-term success.

Melissa Baldwin:

That is a great point. Let’s move on to hiring and team management. Hiring and interviewing can be one of the most challenging parts of building a company.

You have grown your organization from four people to around seventy employees. You might not be as directly involved in hiring now, but when you were conducting interviews, did you have a specific question you liked to ask candidates to evaluate them? 

Value Creators vs Value Extractors: How We Build Our Team

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

I am still very involved in the hiring process, including interviews. What I try to determine is whether a candidate wants to extract value from the company or create value for the company.

There is not a single question that reveals that immediately. Instead, I try to understand the person through the conversation and see what kind of mindset they bring.

Because we are a highly technical company, we obviously look for strong technical skills. But beyond technical ability, we want people who can genuinely contribute to building the company.

It is not about personal wealth or individual success. Our existing employees want to work with colleagues who help build the team and move the company forward.

No one wants to spend their time dragging someone up the hill. They want teammates who help push the stone up the hill together.

Melissa Baldwin:

I love that analogy. It really captures the idea of teamwork.

Let’s move to another topic: marketing and artificial intelligence. You now have around seventy employees. At what point did you start investing in communications or public relations? When did you bring in someone full time to focus on marketing for the company?

Long-Form Media Strategy: Why YouTube Works for Nuclear Innovation

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

I would say that at our company, we are truly world-class at developing nuclear reactors and the technologies related to them. We have many employees who, if they were competing in a world championship in this field, would absolutely win the gold medal. They are exceptionally talented.

However, marketing has not historically been one of our strongest areas. We struggled with it for many years. This year, we are finally starting to improve. We have generated more views, attention, and reach this year than we did during the previous ten years combined.

So we are beginning to find the right direction, but I would still say we are not world-class in marketing yet. We still have a lot to learn.

Melissa Baldwin:

I will give credit where credit is due. Your company recently appeared on Undecided with Matt Ferrell, which is a very widely respected YouTube channel. It looks like that feature happened about a month ago.

Are there any podcasts or content creators that you follow or recommend to others in the industry?

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

I would say my media habits are probably a bit different from the general public. As I mentioned earlier, I have spent most of my career working in high-tech environments where we are inventing new technologies.

Because of that, I tend to focus a lot on what might happen ten or twenty years into the future rather than what is happening right now. I have also followed artificial intelligence developments very closely.

Recently, however, I have made a conscious effort to pay more attention to current media channels so that I stay aligned with investors and the people I interact with in my work.

Melissa Baldwin:

That actually leads nicely into another topic I wanted to discuss: artificial intelligence.

What is your company’s approach to AI? I have two parts to this question. First, are you using AI internally to support your operations? And second, is AI part of your product or service offering?

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

One thing we will release soon is an AI-driven chatbot on our website. Visitors will be able to ask questions about Copenhagen Atomics and our technology. Eventually, the system will also allow users to ask questions comparing our technology with that of our competitors.

That is a relatively small use case for AI, but it is something we will offer publicly through our website.

More broadly, I have started saying recently that twenty years from now our largest customers might not be humans. They could actually be AI systems. That idea may sound unusual today, but artificial intelligence is already here and will continue growing rapidly.

AI will likely have a major influence on the global economy and energy demand.

About a month ago, I published an article where I estimated how different sectors might consume energy by 2050. In that analysis, I predicted that AI would be the fastest-growing consumer of electricity.

If I remember correctly, my estimate suggested that AI could consume around 20 percent of the world’s electricity by 2050.

Of course, that is only a prediction, and it could certainly turn out to be wrong.

Melissa Baldwin:

That’s a fascinating perspective. We’ll have your team send us the article so we can include it in the show notes.

Now I’d like to shift the conversation to something more personal. Being a CEO comes with enormous demands on your time and energy. What do you do to maintain your performance and well-being as a leader?

Staying Strong as a CEO: Exercise, Focus, and Team Celebration

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

I would not say that I have perfected this, but I am very aware of the need to manage my time carefully. Many people want my attention and my opinion on various topics, and it is impossible to respond to everything.

Because of that, I have to be disciplined about deciding what to say yes to and what to decline.

Another thing I try to prioritize is exercise. Recently, I have made a conscious effort to spend more time being physically active. I have seen studies suggesting that physical exercise helps improve brain function, mood, and resilience.

When you exercise and use your muscles regularly, it improves your ability to cope with stress and complex challenges.

Melissa Baldwin:

That’s great. What about motivating your team? Startups often experience difficult cycles or setbacks. How do you keep your team motivated during those periods?

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

Startup companies are often like a roller coaster. I have experienced that many times during my career.

When a startup receives funding, everything feels exciting. You hire more people, set ambitious goals, and the entire organization feels optimistic.

But eventually, some goals fail, or unexpected problems arise. Sometimes the challenges are technical, sometimes they involve people, and sometimes they involve investors. Those moments create emotional swings within the company.

I would not claim that I am perfect at managing these situations, but I try to remain attentive to the people around me. If an employee is going through personal difficulties, I try to avoid placing extremely demanding tasks on them during that period.

We also try to support each other as a team. Sometimes that support is simple. It might mean going out for a beer together or organizing a social event to relieve some of the stress.

Building a strong team culture is not only about pushing for technical achievements. It is also about creating moments of connection and enjoyment.

One practice I strongly encourage in our company is celebrating progress. Whenever a team achieves an important milestone, we organize what we call an internal demo. The team demonstrates what they have built or accomplished.

During these events we invite the entire company. We usually celebrate with cake, ice cream, or sometimes champagne, depending on the milestone.

It is important to celebrate even small victories. These demos help the entire company understand what different teams are working on and recognize the effort that goes into solving complex problems.

Melissa Baldwin:

I love that idea. Celebrating with cake, ice cream, or champagne sounds like a great way to acknowledge those wins.

Let me ask one final question. Would you consider yourself a climate optimist or a climate pessimist, and why?

Closing Thoughts: Climate Optimism and Energy Awareness

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

I would say that I am a climate optimist.

In many ways, I do not think the issue is only about climate. The planet has existed for billions of years, and it will likely continue to exist for billions more. Life will continue on this planet for a very long time. It may not necessarily be human life, but there will almost certainly still be animals, plants, and ecosystems thriving in the distant future.

Melissa Baldwin:

All right. Are there any final thoughts you would like to leave our listeners with?

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

I think people should spend more time thinking about where their energy comes from and what energy really means in everyday life.

We should not take energy for granted. Instead, we should try to understand how energy influences the price of everything we consume, whether it is a cup of coffee, a vacation, or any other product.

Every product we use has a story behind it. Somewhere in the world there is a factory where that product was manufactured. That factory was built with steel and concrete. Someone had to produce those materials, and someone had to supply the energy that powers the entire process.

When we follow that chain far enough, we realize that many of the products we use every day are manufactured far away from where we live. Most of the items I personally consume are produced halfway around the world.

I do not think that situation is ideal, but it is the reality today. I cannot change it immediately, but I believe more people should become aware of how global manufacturing, energy production, and economic systems are interconnected.

Understanding those connections will become even more important in the future, especially as technologies like artificial intelligence continue to grow and demand more energy.

Melissa Baldwin:

That is a great point. Every object we touch has a story behind it, including where it was produced, how it was manufactured, and the materials involved. Many people probably do not think about that very often.

Thomas, it has been great speaking with you. Thank you for taking the time to join us today and for sharing your insights here on Scaling Clean.

Thomas Jam Pedersen:

Thank you for the opportunity.