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.
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.
Your data for ERCOT do not show consumer prices. Useless.
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.
“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.”
Humorous supposition from the Kingdom of Imaginedarea
“ Families should not be forced to subsidize billion-dollar [any noun can go here].”
Sez who?
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?
“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.
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.