This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission.
In an age of unending propaganda and spin, there are still rare times when undeniable evidence leaves no room for argument. Such is the case with the emerging artificial intelligence data centers and the energy needed to sustain and grow them.
The evolving AI technologies and their rapid implementation in almost every walk of life can be intimidating and even frightening. The technology already seems in danger of outpacing the controls and parameters necessary to harness AI’s astounding possibilities. The Stanley Kubrick classic from 1968, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” warned about a future where “thinking” computers would refuse to obey the commands of their human creators.
While ethicists wrestle with the philosophical questions surrounding AI and politicians debate laws to regulate it, the U.S. must not only compete with other nations but make sure it remains the worldwide leader. To that end, AI centers continue springing up across the country, placing demands on electric grids unlike anything seen before.
Penn State’s Institute of Energy and the Environment recently reported that in 2023, AI data centers consumed 4.4% of electricity in the U.S. alone. That’s an impressive number. But the institute went on to predict that by 2030-2035, data centers “could account for 20% of global electricity use, putting an immense strain on power grids.”
MIT’s Energy Initiative noted earlier this year how ubiquitous AI technology has become, with most people not giving it a second thought as they utilize its services daily through companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon.
“Without realizing it, consumers rely on AI when they stream a video, do online banking, or perform an online search,” MIT noted. “Behind these capabilities are more than 10,000 data centers globally, each one a huge warehouse containing thousands of computer servers and other infrastructure for storing, managing, and processing data. There are now over 5,000 data centers in the U.S., and new ones are being built every day—both in the U.S. and worldwide.”
Universities such as Penn State and MIT are worried about the data centers’ “environmental footprint.” But many who predicted that “alternatives” would someday power the world are increasingly acknowledging the fact that fueling the data center boom will require traditional energy sources, especially natural gas.
“While renewables like wind and solar will play an important role in the energy future, they alone cannot power a 24/7 AI infrastructure,” Forbes recently reported. “That’s why natural gas and nuclear are regaining prominence in grid planning. Several utilities have fast-tracked proposals for new natural gas “peaker” plants. Others are evaluating small modular nuclear reactors as potential solutions for delivering steady, low-carbon baseload power.”
While some data center developers may be considering building small nuclear reactors, natural gas has the upper hand because it is readily available and can be utilized more quickly – and it’s increasingly considered “green” energy, including by legislative fiat.
It’s important to step back and recall the conflicting courses being charted less than a year ago by the U.S. government on one hand and the AI boom on the other. While the U.S. desperately needed to keep pace with other nations, particularly China, in building AI data centers, the Biden administration was implementing policies designed to eliminate fossil fuel-based energy in favor of taxpayer-subsidized solar and wind farms.
In essence, the U.S. was on track to power down at the same time that new technologies demanded greater and more reliable power sources than ever before. Thank goodness voters came to the rescue in 2024. President Trump and his administration are working overtime to undo the damage of the previous administration. Trump’s Energy Department, guided by two executive orders – “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” and “Unleashing American Energy” – is examining ways to facilitate and accelerate the AI infrastructure.
On July 15, the Trump administration announced more than $90 billion in AI and energy investments in Pennsylvania, “including Google’s $25 billion investment in data centers and infrastructure, Blackstone’s $25 billion investment in data centers and natural gas plants, and CoreWeave’s $6 billion investment in data center expansion.”
Last week, Trump delivered the keynote address at a half-day summit in Washington D.C., hosted by the All‑In Podcast and the Hill & Valley Forum, called “Winning the AI Race.” The event also featured other administration officials and leaders in the AI tech world.
The Trump administration’s proactive posture toward AI and associated data centers should be welcomed by all Americans. Likewise, people across the political spectrum should be clear-eyed about the emergent demands on our nation’s electric grid and the fact that “renewables” such as wind and solar are simply not up to the task. No political propaganda or spin will change that immutable scientific reality.
Natural gas is the future, and the future is now. If you’re not sure about that, just Google it – which is possible thanks to an electric grid powered mostly by reliable, affordable and available natural gas.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. Abernathy’s “TEA Takes” column will be published every Wednesday and delivered to your inbox!
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Most of the problems with using coal or nuclear are political. The Green Blob
remains influential with the Democratic Party and the remaining RINOs, and they hate both.
The list of things they hate has neither beginning nor end.
To which this sweet response was invented —
‘[One] cannot possibly hate them enough!’ [Or ‘too much’.]
It plays roughly the same role as the Southern ‘Well, Bless Your Heart!’…
Politicians love anything that pumps other people’s money into their districts. RINOs have no love for ‘green’ energy, they just love the money.
No, into their pockets, not their districts.
In Australia we have to burn coal because gas is too expensive to use off peak and we have no nuclear power or connections to other places.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/burn-coal-in-australia-or-die-in
Coal is more reliable than gas in bitter cold, and it is more convenient to store..
Time is short in the US, can you escape from the wind drought trap?
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/defusing-the-wind-drought-trap-revised
The US was only one Democrat Administration away from disastrous power failures because the country is in the jaws of the wind drought trap. It is up to the Trump Administration to get them out, and to show the way for all the other western nations where suicidal net zero policies are in place.
The power crisis experienced by Texas in February 2021 was a taste of things to come when a bitter cold spell and low winds overnight caused a partial blackout of the State. The inadequately winterised gas supply under-performed and a complete blackout was only narrowly averted. Hundreds died and a complete blackout would have killed many thousands.
The wind drought trap is set over many years as subsidies and mandates for unreliable solar and wind energy displaced conventional power without being able to replace it. There is a ‘frog in the saucepan’ effect because coal power retires one plant at a time and this does not cause alarm while there is spare capacity.
Eventually the spare capacity runs out and the trap is set to close when there is not enough to meet the base load overnight. Then windless nights are potentially lethal because there is no wind or solar generation, regardless of the amount of installed capacity.
The two newest US. nuclear plants are Voglte 3&4. They took 15 years to build.
SMR does not yet exist. So the only realistic way to timely power new AI data centers is with natgas and CCGT.
SMR does not yet exist.
Respectfully, you may need to update your eBook(s) on this topic, bc —
“SMR” by another name may be found under ‘Nuclear Navy / Navies’. In which case it does exist, will continue to exist, wherever reliability needs are critical and space is critically limited, as in a nuclear submarine. “AI”, whatever that means, may someday rise to that level of national-security priority, in which case the nuclear solution is available N-O-W, having nothing to do with Vogtle 3&4 / 15 yrs-to-build. — RLWhetten
The Navy SMR use highly enriched uranium, so are unsuited for civilian purposes.
I understand that the cooling requirements for naval nuclear powered vessels are readily solved by virtue of their constant access to unlimited water supply.
Land-based SMRs don’t have this in common with naval nuclear plants?
Naval Nuclear Plants…sounds small enough to fit in your belly button
A floating SMR would have all the cooling water it needs, plus it could be moved to a new location if needed.
Oh . . . you mean like those currently in use on US Navy aircraft carriers?
Excellent technical point. Beyond this, here are some other key factors available to military-controlled nuclear power plants that enable them to be viable for naval fleet use, whereas the same factors are not applicable/available to civilian, commercially-controlled power plants (of any size):
— no real worry about obtaining funding (once naval vessel is authorized for build)
— no worry about economic “breakeven” point or ROI
— no need to obtain land for plant site
— no need to build out high power transmission lines to connect to (remote?) grid
— no need for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)
— no need to worry about NIMBY politics, protests or lawsuits
— no need to obtain liability insurance
— no need to plan for on-site storage on nuclear waste stream
— no worry about obtaining a stream of qualified, trained operators and maintenance workers
— “site security” is automatically present . . . not a separate concern or cost
— no need to worry about plant decommissioning costs
SMRs don’t have to be located near water sources. The Chinese 200MWe pebble bed reactor is located in a desert and uses helium cooling.
There are no SMR factories in the US, are there? No production line, yes?
An Executive Order is needed.
Time for another Trump Card
Nuscale had their design approved by the NRC earlier this year and I think they are the closest US based company to actually producing an SMR but they aint there yet.
Amazon is pairing up with a Eastern Washington state utility company and Canadian based Xenergy to install an SMR in Washington supposedly within 5 years. To do that Xenergy has to be ready to roll but they are US based.
That might be because there are NO utility-scale, land-based SMRs yet that have been real world-demonstrated to be commercially viable.
You might like to read – Chinese SMR being installed — this year:
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/china-mini-nuclear-reactor-power-homes
Story is bereft of detail. If the US didn’t haven the regulatory quagmire it does for licensing and building nuclear we could of had a lot of SMR’s already in operation.
Although it’s not classed as an SMR, presumably because it wasn’t a modular build, the small 200MWe reactor in China has been producing commercial power since December 2023.
I guess NG is the way to go for now, but only because it will take some time to rebuild coal, and even nuclear, and they need the energy today, not in 5 or 10 years.
Yes. In addition to the Vogtle nuclear disasters, the last new coal plant in the US came on line in (if I recall correctly) 2012. Turk in Arkansas. Is about 600 MW USC at about 41% thermal efficiency. Took 4.5 years to construct. Was planned before fracked shale gas. Sensible when Turk was green lighted. LCOE is still about 50% higher than CCGT at present nat gas pricing. The BE to USC cheap coal from Powder River basin is natgas at about $8/mmbtu. It is now under $4.
So from a data center timing perspective, coal isn’t an option either—when CCGT is ‘off the shelf’ in 2-2.5 years.
“A new coal-fired power plant hasn’t opened in the U.S. since 2013, but that’s about to change. A leading state legislator tells Cowboy State Daily that plans are in the works to build a next-generation coal and CO2 plant in Wyoming.” March, 2025
Well, you can go all gung ho on AI and have those powerhungry computing centres go full blast, you still have to deliver power to ordinary citizens via the grid. AI could gobble up an increasing amount of energy even if wind/ solar is halted. I can see people last in line way past the corporates. Money talks. Actually it swears. And politics follow.
No room for clean coal for powering AI?
See above. Is a construction timing problem. Coal still takes too long and at present is still significantly more expensive than CCGT.
Far beyond that, renewables like wind and solar alone cannot power any 24/7 demand system, like a Utility Grid
Micron Technology has committed to build a large computer chip fabrication plant in New York state.
That commitment is based upon New York being able to deliver vast amounts of renewable-generated electricity from the power grid. Onsite power generation is not currently being considered.
See today’s article by the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York, Roger Caizza, concerning this topic:
“My Comment on the Micron Draft Environmental Impact Statement” (Roger Caizza, August 8th 2025)
It is not possible at this point for New York to meet its obligations to Micron for delivering the quantities of electricity needed to safely run the Micron plant.
In point of fact, it was never possible for New York to meet its obligations to Micron to deliver the volumes of power needed.
Micron’s management isn’t stupid. And so we must ask this question …. What kind of game is being played among Micron’s senior managers and New York state’s political and appointed officials concerning the future construction and operation of this major chip fabrication plant?
What are their true intentions? What are their true goals and objectives in playing this game, whatever kind of game it actually is?
New York can import ‘renewable’ hydro from Quebec. I am pretty sure that was the premise behind the commitment—plus all the NY tax inducements. According to Google, the New York State stuff alone is worth $5.5 billion over the fab life.
Also as we are starting to see an idea percolate through big tech that they’ll generate their own power using gas.
On-site gas-fired generation is the only realistic option Big Tech has available to it. Even that option is constrained to some extent by how long it will take to ramp up the industrial base needed to supply the necessary volumes and types of gas-fired power generation equipment and gas-delivery transportation infastructure.
You don’t need “thinking” computers for that!
Wind and solar can not sustain the grid. Wind and solar can not sustain a modern society, Ai or no AI. Remove all wind and solar from the grid. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Do not lean on just one source like natural gas.
From this morning’s WSJ …
Silver Lake Invests $400 Million to Tackle Data-Center Power BottleneckThe private-equity firm is looking to bundle land parcels with power availability, which it said is now the biggest obstacle to data-center development
Private-equity firm Silver Lake is expected to announce Friday a $400 million project aimed at securing powered land it will sell to data-center developers and hyperscalers.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/silver-lake-invests-400-million-to-tackle-data-center-power-bottleneck-7850ca17?st=2zUDPN&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Not a single field of windmills or solar “generators.” Power to the People!
And these power projects mean jobs. Good, well-paying jobs.
**** WARNING: NEW MEANINGLESS TERM ALERT! ****
The term “powered land” has been detected in the above post.
Copilot says,
“Powered Land” Explained
The term “Powered Land” refers to land that has pre-secured electrical infrastructure, making it immediately viable for energy-intensive developments—especially data centers. Here’s what it typically entails:
Key Features of Powered Land
Try to keep up.
rovingbroker,
Did you even bother to notice the inconsistencies that the “Copilot” AI spit out in its “explanation”?
To wit: per your cut-and-paste, it first states this:
“The term “Powered Land” refers to land that has pre-secured electrical infrastructure . . .”
but then goes on to state:
“Grid Connectivity: It’s already wired to the electrical grid . . .” followed by “Reduced Time to Market: . . . often with a bridge service to supply temporary power until a dedicated substation is built.” Well, which is it? . . . why is a electrical “bridge service” needed if the land has “pre-secured electrical infrastructure” and is “already wired to the electrical grid”?
Also, there is this assertion by Copilot:
“The land comes with a signed agreement from a utility provider guaranteeing a specific power load (often 50–200MW or more).”
So, if the already-signed agreement is to provide, say, 100 MW of electrical power and the land has the “pre-secured electrical infrastructure” for that, are potential land buyers ruled ineligible if they plan to use, say, only 200 kW peak? Or would such a buyer have to pay for the pre-agreed peak power level independent of how much was actually used? (Realizing, of course, electrical energy is typically sold on a kWh basis, not on peak power load in kW).
So much for what Copilot “says”.
P.S. In all probability both you and Copilot missed the clear evidence that “powered land” is useful as a marketing phrase but is otherwise an impractical concept . . . hence qualifying pretty much as meaningless.
It will also take time to complete the streets, water supply and sewers as well. All new construction comes with some risk as to how long it will take to complete. The buyers aren’t rubes buying swamp land in the middle of Florida. Or maybe they are. Time will tell.
Just curious, if we set “all spin aside” (per the above article’s title), how will any natural gas-fueled power plant produce electricity without rotating machinery?
/sarc
.
.
.
(And yes, I know about MHD power generation.)
I had a blackout over the weekend. Friday onto Sunday, Verizon FIOS failed. The cause was isolated to a degraded buried fiber cable. Fortunately power was on, but I lost internet, land line, cable TV and wifi, which given my coverage made communications unreliable at best.
I drove to another town and was able to locate a FIOS store and they gave me the service phone number. Standing on my driveway facing east I was able to get 1 bar of signal and able to call.
I spent over 30 minutes jousting with their new and improved call center AI, which kept telling me to run checks already done. It did not accept any answers for which it was not programmed to accept. By blind luck I was able to connect with a human. Comm was intermittent but I finally got a tech scheduled.
From this, I realized that had I had an electrical blackout, it would have been the same. No power, no router. Land lines were converted to fiber. No power, no phone. Worse, it seems no power and the fiber interface shuts down. Even if battery backup for that component were working, I would still be isolated.
So much for our information super highway and AI. It all requires reliable electricity and maintained infrastructure. We have become addicted to our modern technology. We are all vulnerable. Imagine not being able to call for an ambulance or emergency response of any kind.
So to solve that problem, let’s go out and kill marine and avian life and be happy as we will have nothing.