When members of Congress return home for the summer, few issues will confront them more quickly than the explosion of data center development.
Across the country, voters are asking the same basic questions: Will the AI boom raise my electricity bill? Will it strain the grid during peak demand? Will my community be asked to absorb the land-use, noise, and infrastructure burden while someone else captures the upside?
Those are fair questions. They are not anti-technology or anti-growth. They are what people ask when they’re promised an AI future without an explanation of who pays for it.
Conservatives should take those concerns seriously. Families should not be forced to subsidize billion-dollar computing facilities. Local communities should not be kept in the dark. And lawmakers should not pretend that every objection to a data center is just NIMBYism. The backlash is real. In our June 2026 national survey, voters opposed an AI data center being built in their community by more than two to one — 62% to 27% — with nearly half strongly opposed.
But the right response is not a moratorium. It is more power. That means building the energy resources that can meet demand on the timeline communities actually face.
Right now, solar and battery energy storage are among the only major energy resources that can be deployed quickly enough and affordably enough to keep pace with rising demand. In fact, they have accounted for more than 80% of all new power added to the grid during the Trump administration.
Voters are ready for that buildout. In the same survey in which they rejected data centers, nearly two-thirds of Americans said they would welcome a solar farm in their own community — support on par with an Amazon distribution center or a new manufacturing plant. Americans are not against building. They are against being handed the costs of the AI boom without the power to pay for it.
The scale of the challenge is not theoretical. A June 2026 analysis from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that data centers could more than double their electricity use by 2030 and represent more than 40% of U.S. electricity demand growth over the next five years. The question is no longer whether AI needs significant power. It is whether America will build it in time.
That is why conservatives should champion energy abundance. Natural gas matters. Nuclear matters. Transmission matters. So do solar and battery storage, because they are practical tools that can be deployed relatively quickly, add meaningful capacity, and help meet demand during the very hours when the grid is under pressure.
This is not a partisan issue. In our January survey of the likely 2026 electorate, solar was one of the best-liked industries in America — viewed favorably by 67% of voters. Trump voters view solar companies favorably by nearly two to one, and in rural America, solar is favorably viewed by a wide margin.
In fast-growing states, solar is already helping utilities and grid operators keep pace with rising load, while batteries are increasingly shifting that power into the evening hours, when families come home, air conditioners are running, and solar output begins to fall.
Texas offers a useful example. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says wind and solar met 36% of ERCOT demand in the first nine months of 2025, while batteries increasingly helped supply evening electricity as solar output declined. EIA also forecasts that utility-scale solar in ERCOT will exceed coal generation on an annual basis for the first time in 2026.
Some critics will say that these projects simply create another land-use problem. That objection deserves a factual answer, too. A recent interactive tool released by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) does just that, showing that solar uses just 0.04% of total U.S. land and 0.07% of U.S. farmland, with no state using more than 0.5% of its prime farmland for solar. Not every project belongs everywhere, and communities deserve transparency and respect for legitimate local concerns. But conservatives should be wary of turning every concern into a veto over the infrastructure America needs to power its future.
The alternative to energy abundance isn’t standing still. It’s falling behind. It means delays, special deals, local moratoria, higher prices, and growing resentment. That is bad for families, bad for the grid, and bad for American competitiveness at a moment when China is not slowing down.
Lawmakers going home this summer do not need a better slogan on AI. They need a better answer on power. Large loads should pay their fair share. Communities should get straight answers. And America should build more energy of every kind, including the solar and storage projects already helping fast-growing states, many of which are traditional conservative strongholds, add real power on timelines that match the urgency of the moment.
AI won’t run on talking points. It will run on affordable, abundant electricity. The market is already pointing us toward the fastest, most affordable path to more power. Let’s take it.
Your data for ERCOT do not show consumer prices. Useless.
I look at the AI factories as just another consumer. In reality, all consumers drive up the price for the others. Demand is demand.
If a new abattoir or other large business was to set up in the district, would there be the same complaints about the power bills rising? Maybe, maybe also complaints about other aspects, eg smell, the need for new waste facilities, etc.
People don’t like change, NIMBYism runs thick and fast in everyone. It’s probably something left over from our development, something innate, like where to find a regular supply of water or food.
AI is probably just a larger demand on a limited resource. What we should be arguing for is not a limit to development but a growth of the usable resources.
Anyway, that’s my thought on it.
I am sick and tired of these articles that try to bundle the need for more power generation with the need to support the AI buildout. How about we just build the power plants and not the data centers?
Furthermore, articles extolling the blessings of solar power are a bit out of character for WUWT, don’t you think? Perhaps this was presented in a spirit of irony, or perhaps the editor simply did not read it.
I’m a conservative. I don’t like industrial Solar. I don’t like creating jobs for the Chicoms and giving them our money.
Windmills and solar are the problem for our grids, not the solution.
Before windmills and solar were added to our electrical grids, there were no blackout warnings and the prices for electricity were reasonable. After windmills and solar were added to our grids, we get blackout warnings every summer and winter (there is a warning in effect for the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) at this very moment), and the prices for electricity skyrocket.
Trump has the AI companies agreeing to build their own power plants and this will enhance the grids while not costing the consumer anything.
If they want to build solar farms, I can’t stop them, but I’m a firm No vote on windmills and solar. Trying to fit them into the grid has us jumping through hoops and consequently paying a lot more compared to conventional generation.
“Right now, solar and battery energy storage are among the only major energy resources that can be deployed quickly enough and affordably enough to keep pace with rising demand. In fact, they have accounted for more than 80% of all new power added to the grid during the Trump administration.”
Interesting statistic. And this:
“Texas offers a useful example. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says wind and solar met 36% of ERCOT demand in the first nine months of 2025, while batteries increasingly helped supply evening electricity as solar output declined. EIA also forecasts that utility-scale solar in ERCOT will exceed coal generation on an annual basis for the first time in 2026.”
See my comment above for why solar is not fit for industrial use. Neither is wind power. They are useful when used at the end user, but not for grids. BTW, wind and solar are the least green energies on the planet and devoting all of our lithium and copper to these ridiculous projects is stupid-squared.
Well, CFACT says that solar is whar is working right now, so is the best bet.
Nick, it is 7:47 AM where I am and whatever solar is installed in this area is likely working ,as you say, a small amount right now. The sky is overcast so its production is less than what a clear sky would permit. Later today, we are forecast for clouds and light winds so we will probably get little or nothing from wind/solar then. It is certain however that by about 8:30 PM today, that solar will not be working at all and won’t be producing useful amounts of electricity again for at least 12 or more hours, until late tomorrow morning. But tomorrow’s weather forecast is for clouds, thunderstorms and rain so perhaps not. Fortunately, my local utility gets about 20% of its electricity from nuclear, just over 53% from natural gas, a bit from wind (on average only) and a trace from solar (on average only) and hydro. But be not concerned as we will carry through the day because of having abundant synchronous generation to replace solar and wind, should the weather be as predicted, and to smooth out their vagaries as is always needed, should they produce anything.
80%.. one of these days, please god make it soon, the awful realisation that capacity does NOT equal output will dawn on you. With solar, you’ll be lucky to get 15% output from the 80% capacity.
“will dawn on you”
I am simply quoting a WUWT lead post. Do you expect me to alter it?
Oh come on Nick, you know very well that solar panels are very inefficient at converting solar energy into electricity. It’s an undeniable fact.
Surely the fact that solar panels are very inefficient at converting solar energy into electricity cannot be ignored.
Not by rational people, but there are others who will ignore what they need to ignore. And then ignore the fact that they are ignoring it.
Well, at least such people are consistent.
We expect you to lie and obfuscate, that’s all you ever do.
I actually do not believe Nick is lying. I think he is a true believer and, as such, he posts what his truth is.
Nope. A lie is a lie. Period. No such thing as “his truth” her truth” “their truth”, there is only truth. Just as there is no such thing as “social justice”, there is only justice.
Maybe if you applied some critical thinking, examining alternatives and known and unknown consequences, you might have a better comment.
The quote was from an article by Patrick Ruffini not WUWT, just re-posted here. Pay attention.
“Pay attention”
So if it is so erroneous, why was no-one paying attention when WUWT posted it?
Humorous supposition from the Kingdom of Imaginedarea
“ Families should not be forced to subsidize billion-dollar [any noun can go here].”
Sez who?
If I insert the noun “government”, it becomes a call of elimination of all US national- and state-level governmental income, real-estate and sales taxes . . . good luck with that!
Such even applies to MANY countries outside the USA.
Can someone explain to me how solar meets demand at night?
Batteries! You’ve got to be kidding. I don’t believe for one second, they are making a difference in supply across the US. Maybe less time than what I believe (see previous sentence). Batteries have to be charged when there is excess energy. It seems as though they are a drain rather than a supply. My god! The madness. When will it end?
It will end when Western Democracies have died.
When candlemaking can’t keep up with demand.
Batteries are sometimes used to meet sudden peak loads in lieu of peaker plants held on idle till needed. The thought is that batteries are cheaper for such service. I have no information on the economics of this choice. It is clear, however, that batteries cannot meet loads for more than a very few hours at a time.
Average duration of BESS in UK is currently just under 2 hours. The ‘plan’ is to raise this to 3-4 hours by 2030.
Hours? Try minutes.
“Right now, solar and battery energy storage are among the only major energy resources that can be deployed quickly enough”
This is simply not true as intermittent energy sources not only are unreliable and expensive but battery storage is super expensive and also prone to burn. Wind, solar, and battery installations have short half-lives (~12 years) and very expensive, take up hoards of land, demand huge infrastructure, and all are not recyclable.
Solar panels pollute the soil with heavy metals, need constant maintenance, and their electrical production slowly decreases over time.
Wind power is a mess as well, with huge problems with maintenance, even on land, but offshore is a disaster as the salt air eats the blades besides the problems with corrosion and access for maintenance.
Batteries are poorly designed with many small cells and one cell failure can destroy the whole thing. Furthermore, batteries have problems with performance over time. Batteries supply electricity measured in minutes and not the hours and days that are needed when the sun does not shine and the wind dies.
Carbon fuel power and nuclear power have none of these problems and can run reliably for many decades. Modular nuclear power is clearly the way to go, having a small footprint, reliability, and easy siting.
YOU CANNOT BUILD A RELIABLE ENERGY SUPPLY FROM UNRELIABLE ENERGY SOURCES.
There is also the problem that you just don’t throw wind and solar wherever you want them. Lets say that a datacenter developer found the ideal location for a 500MW hyperscaler. That doesn’t mean that there are 50sq miles of wind swept prairie for the datacenter to monopolize with wind farms. Dittos with solar. Just because a datacenter needs to be located near an area that just happens to have little wind and 80% cloudy skies, doesn’t mean that solar or wind is going to be useful there.
“Right now, solar and battery energy storage are among the only major energy resources that can be deployed quickly enough”
Continuing with that- even if solar and battery storage were a good idea- and they’re not- it’s not as if they can be built quickly in most of America. They have to be approved by local, state and federal authorities which can take years- thankfully. Many communities don’t want them.
You failed to mention massive imports from China in your not build in the USA.
Whether or not small modular reactors are the way to go is at present quite unproven. One SMR manufacturer, NewScale was to build a bunch of their 70MW (electric) pressurized water reactor plants in Idaho but could not offer electricity at prices the local utilities would accept so the project failed. And this was a PWR based on well proven technology, unlike many SMR offerers who advertise liquid sodium or molten salt (or combination of the two technologies) that have histories of maintenance difficulties. In addition having multiple small reactors is not clearly cheaper to build, operate and maintain. For a bunch say of 10, how many operator shifts are needed – 10X? How many busted valves or pumps will need fixing – 10X? The basic scheme discards the well proven economy of scale. To me, it is not at all clear that SMRs are the future. All that is clear, it seems, is that we shall see.
I believe SMRs have a future in powering larger country towns that are located well inland and often supplied with a single transmission line or rely on locally-generated power. This might not apply in the U.S., but is certainly applicable in Australia.
AI (and most other useful industry) needs reasonably reliable and predictable energy. Not a surplus at one minute and next to nothing when a dark cloud shows up. Nor energy from kit that is largely controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.
Plus, I live at latitude 54° North. Not Texas.
So you can take your solar power and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Why the sudden interest in data centers?
Who is the money behind the opposition, especially the lies the opponents spread.
It takes a lot of money to create a national movement!
It is quite possible that human wisdom and intelligence shared widely has given rise to what you call the opposition – no need whatsoever for conspiracy.
I see no intelligence or wisdom in the anti-AI movement.
Likewise, I see no intelllgence or wisdom in the pro-AI movement.
Try a little research on what AI is doing.
I know more than you think I do.
I also know what the pronouncements are.
So it is not wise or intelligent to want to improve health care, foods, agriculture, improve the environment, supply chain managements, reduce costs, eliminate fraud…..That’s how AI is being used. I am not being wise or intelligent supporting AI?
Delusions can and do spread easily in our global information society.
There is a lot of muddled thinking going on out there.
Lots of investment money and no place to park it.
People talk about the AI Race, but China has already lapped the field so any race has been already been called and the Western nations will just end up using China’s AI industry since they have the ability to power and the ability to source the components and ability to pirate the West’s AI IP so that their product is impossibly hard to compete against.
Just like the West can’t manufacture much today because Asian markets are far superior in every metric (labor, regulation, power, supply-chain, material costs, speed-to-market, etc.) So I’m guessing that the next step will be the early investors looking to dump their overpriced investments to the unsavvy “investor” — the tax payer, in the form of a Sovereign Public Trust with the claim that datacenter profits will be shared with The People.
The money trail has been tracked back to China.
wrong place
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/probe-subversive-anti-ai-singham-network-enormous-former-treasury-advisor-says
Data centers and tulips, both driven by hysteria. We’ll learn to use AI to our advantage in time but now is questionable. How many data centers do you need to come up with the same answer? And is that answer valid?
Tulips. A good reference…didn’t the economy collapse and people were forced to eat the tulips to live? Or is that a myth and my old timer’s memory is fading?
https://gardener-advice.com/16920198-are-tulips-poisonous-risks-from-tulip-blossoms-for-humans-and-animals
Thanks for the info-it seems indeed a myth, but some sources say only mildly toxic and so on and so forth, and other sources say yes the Dutch ate them and here is how to prepare them. Personally, I see the reference as a cautionary against the data center hysteria and potential boom and bust. I wish someone would tell the deer and the squirrels on my homestead not to eat the flowers and bulbs; doesn’t seem to hurt them at all. Alas.
China is going the open-source AI route to build manufacturing solutions, not investing trillions of dollars in a fantasy: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/07/27/china-hacked-the-west-without-really-trying/
When the wind and solar are not producing and the battery is flat the AI center should have its own diesel generator for backup and not suddenly place a big drain on the grid.
https://www.copenhagenatomics.com has a way to use thorium to provide cheap safe electricity.
I’m ignorant here, could someone help me understand why datacenters that consume hundreds of megawatts of power just don’t build their own on-site generation facilities.
If the people who insisted on having the world’s least reliable grid at historically high prices are worried about an AI center using their precious intermittent energy, if a datacenter developer came forth and said: “We will build our own on-site and not connect to the grid” then wouldn’t the community be happy because here is a major tax payer who has low municipal demands (like courts, schools, hospitals, parks, etc.)
And wouldn’t a data center prefer this arrangement so that the datacenter can have actual dispatchable and reliable energy? You would think that the city council would zone and fast-track permits (once the customary grease and vig were spread around)?
From an engineering standpoint I’m thinking that on-site energy doesn’t have the distance losses, doesn’t have to deal with the PUC, doesn’t have to underwrite RTO expenses, last mile, charity and disadvantaged user’s supplements. Doesn’t have to participate in power auctions, compete with wind or solar, threatened brown-outs, ice frozen lines, overheating transformers, and all of the other risks, costs, taxes and fees that come with participating in a heavily regulated public grid.
Whether making semi-conductors, or using semi-conductors to generate crypto, on-site seems to be the way to go. Since energy demand is well known, predictable and can be matched readily by on-site power, instead of using inefficient gas turbines that must play back-up role to wind/solar, companies could put in CCGT and enjoy greater efficiencies while also having the latest technology.
What am I missing here?
You are missing the business incentive to use other people’s money and other people’s infrastructure.
Better still if you can get other people to build their infrastructure so that it meets your needs.
Business incentive? Maybe political incentive?
Both. They are intertwined.
I don’t think the developers want to pay even more than they already are. I’m pretty ignorant of the situation as well, but it seems like it’s always a matter of cost.
I suspect, don’t know for sure, that building their own power supply would be trivial in cost compared to the data center itself.
I don’t know. I would think the regulatory structure around power generation facilities, not the renewable crap, would be pretty onerous in many jurisdictions. That drives up costs.
People who build and run datacenters/AI re experts in running datacenters/AI, not experts in building and running power plants.
There is that.
They could build and own the power plant but not run it. Simply contract that out.
Hire a contractor.
They are paying the cost of the power plants and contracting the operations out to local power companies.
What you are missing is that AI can deliver massive benefits which the political left are desperate to restrict to authoritarian regimes only. The left will do everything in their power (npi) to undermine the west, so expect endless asinine arguments about renewables being better for AI, AI driving up energy prices, China having already won, etc, etc. The reality is very different and the freedoms in the USA should see them be a lot more than just able to compete.
What you are missing is that President Trump has already fixed this problem by getting AI companies to agree to build their own, dedicated power plants next to the AI center, so electricity customers will be held harmless.
There was a big agreement about this just a few days ago. Do a search.
One problem might be that, like you, the general public does not know about this arrangement. The AI companies are not doing a good job at public relations. They have a good story to tell but they are not telling it.
The only thing missing is serious research. Many if not most major data companies are building their power plants.
I believe what you’re missing is the fact that these datacenters are not profitable without heavy subsidization and they can’t actually fund their own power plants. The whole thing is an epic grift. That’s why they have to use public power.
Who is subsidizing them? META just announced plans to build their own NG power plants. Ten of them. Microsoft wants to resurrect Three Mile Island. The only perks I see Data Centers getting is a temporary reduction of their taxes to entice them to build in an area.
Two states have 25% of the existing data centers in the US. The average cost of electricity in those states is below the national average. So where is this subsidy money coming from?
For what it is worth, I completely oppose such waste of energy at this time when it is only going to be used to get consensus data trawling though all the trash and treasure contained in all the readable text accessible on the internet.
It is NOT intelligence, it is not discerning, it is just an omnivore of ideas and notions from sources wise to utterly insane and idiotic.
That is why my crystal ball says that the bubble will inflate and burst faster and worse than the tech bubble did.
I am in agreement with you. Users only see the front end and assume the computers are creating the output autonomously rather than it applying mathematical principles to the data it has collated from pre existing human generated sources. To my mind the idea that an AI system passing the Turing test is not true in the sense that, I think, Alan Turing meant.
Look at it this way: if people with a lot of money want to build data/AI centres using their own money and their own electricity, let them go for it. Even better, let them connect their electricity generation into the grid so that everyone can benefit (economies of scale etc). That way, we all win
That’s the way I look at it.
Try doing a little research. AI is already impacting medicine, healthcare, environmental issues, agriculture, supply line management, new materials, reformulated products, elimination of fraud in the banking system, the legal profession, and much more.
After reading 19 comments:
Backup diesel generators have long been in service at hospitals, assisted living facilities, manufacturing businesses and government facilities throughout the country, as well as at data centers.
Most facilities test diesel backup generators weekly for quick readiness inspections, monthly for 30-minute exercise runs under load, and annually for full system inspections and transfer switch testing per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 110 standards that outlines the performance requirements for emergency and standby power systems (EPSS).
Ask your local grocery store about backup electricity to keep ice cream solid and fish from smelling.
Yes, diesel backup power is good for that purpose. But it’s is NOT a good idea to run a data centre solely on local diesel power.
Emergency generators at factories/hospitals/grocery stores only provide a small percentage of the power used by such facilities.
We have seen what happens when renewables are called to supply entire power grids; ask the Spaniards. They know from bitter experience that renewables cannot reliably supply power grids. Equally data centres cannot run on renewables where continuous supply is required.
Given that it is possible to download AI models and run them on your own PC, I am surprised that these huge data centres are required at all. On the other hand if we want to keep records on entire populations then maybe there is some justification for the construction of such huge data centres.
How about liberating data centers to install in-house modular nuclear plants without too much permitting fuss?
Even in sun drenched Australia data centers are pushing back on being forced to use solar / batteries, they’re not fit for purpose.
Trump is streamlining the process to build conventional fossil fuel power plants, and I’ll bet he does the same for nuclear.
President Trumpis indeed doing it for nuclear (SMRs), but those are not quite ready for broad deployment. CCGT is the only dispatchable, reliable and cost-effective technology for broad rapid deployment. I suspect that many or most data centers are already planning to build their own behind the meter on site power supplies, most likely CCGT. It would be interesting to see the gas turbine order back log.
While the stupid public is still allowing massive destruction of their territories to build unreliable wind and solar facilities, stupidly increasing their electricity costs while risking blackouts and curtailment, data center developers are probably gobbling up gas turbine manufacturing capacity.
I think Musk just bought a gas turbine manufacturing company.
Yes, one that manufactures mobile trailer-mounted gas power plants.
Solar Solar Solar. What nonsense. Just open up the energy market so that the best suppliers get to supply the data centres and the public, and everyone benefits from economies of scale. I doubt that solar can be a major competitor because it is an intermittent supply and batteries are expensive and limited. But my opinion doesn’t count for anything. Just open the market, keep it fair, and see what energy sources win the contracts. States that have started doing this are reportedly (Fortune eg.) already seeing falling electricity prices.
Let the reality of the market preside.
No public money. No subsidies. No rescue of threatened bankruptcy.
The only true democracy is free and open supply and demand. People vote with their dollars.
Elephant in the room, folks!
A process which they hoped would be kept quiet, buying books and scanning the content to teach the AI with data uncontaminated by modern internet shambles and then permanently destroying the printed originals has come to light.
21st Century equivalent of the destruction of the Alexandria Library in ancient Greece.
(see Wiki List of burning books)
Maybe the threat of bringing back burning people at the stake for this crime against humanity ought be considered?
Striking reflections of Fahrenheit 451.
I am surprised that no one has realistically suggested building data centres in really cold places and cooling the computers with forced air.
Iceland, Greenland, northern Canada, alaska, Scandinavia. Open, empty, barren places must have cheap land with few or no people around. An internal gas fired generator system to provide all of the electrical needs.
Only staff needed would be a few techies to maintain the hardware. Software and model development could be done by softies in home country.
Comms could be by starlink or similar. One starlink not enough, then there is plenty of space to put 100 up there.
If the air outlet temperature was warm enough you could feed it to adjacent glasshouse and grow tomatoes and strawberries.
A win win.
There is the data latency issue, which makes it preferable to locate data centres close to the majority of data comms.
Many applications are not latency sensitive, and Musk is a step ahead. Elon Musk’s SpaceX plans to launch up to 1 million orbital AI data center satellites to bypass Earth’s power and cooling limits. Key features include continuous solar power, laser communication links, and radiator-based cooling.
“The scale of the challenge is not theoretical.”
What is theoretical is that a solar farm, even supplemented by batteries to supposedly extend its electricity production for a few hours in the early evening, could provide electricity for any more than 12 hours each day, if it is sunny that day, less if it is not. Data centers, just like many other public and private users of electricity need it 24 hours each day. So much for Mr. Ruffini’s “theory.”
“A recent interactive tool released by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) does just that, showing that solar uses just 0.04% of total U.S. land and 0.07% of U.S. farmland, with no state using more than 0.5% of its prime farmland for solar.”
OK, but note that the 19% of the current US electricity production is provided by nuclear power plants which occupy about 0.003% of US land area.
AI is running just fine on all the devices and computers it is operating on right now. This whole data center scam is just that, a scam.
No, no, no, no, NO to more solar silliness. It will only add to our energy problems.