By Robert Bradley Jr
“The ‘invisible hand’ is at work to enable the dash-to-gas (and diesel too) in the catch-up period for economical, large-scale power generation.”
Climate alarmist/activist Jamie Skaar provided a ‘current’ from the POWERGEN International conference held in San Antonio. His summary on LinkedIn (no link: he blocked me) follows verbatim [with my additions in brackets].
Industry Leaders Signal Major Shift in Gas Turbine Market: Key Takeaways
“Recent insights … reveal an unexpected trend: Gas turbine demand is surging to levels not seen since the early 2000s. What’s driving this growth during our push toward renewables? The answer lies in the unprecedented expansion of data centers and electrification, creating extraordinary demand for reliable, round-the-clock power.”
“Let’s examine what industry leaders are seeing:
1. Current Market Dynamics
– Over 7,000 gas turbines operating in U.S. alone
– Lead times extending to 7-8 years for new projects [work-arounds are reducing this]
– Major manufacturers at maximum production capacity
– GE Vernova investing $600M in U.S. manufacturing expansion
2. Technical Evolution
– Modern combined cycle plants reduce [CO2] emissions 60%+ vs coal
– Manufacturers advancing hydrogen fuel capabilities [pie-in-the-sky]
– Carbon capture integration becoming commercially viable [with high subsidies; in certain areas]
– Efficiency improvements reducing environmental impact….”
Jamie Skaar concludes with the 1990s view of natural gas as the ‘bridge fuel” to sustainability:
The key insight: Rather than phasing out, gas turbines are being reimagined as a bridge technology that could extend well into the future, especially as innovations in hydrogen fuel and carbon capture mature.
He then assumes that businesses will want to “decarbonize” as if it was a per se good rather than a distraction and money-loser.
Questions for energy planners and developers: How are you balancing immediate capacity needs with long-term decarbonization goals? What role do you see for gas turbines in your region’s energy mix over the next decade?
Another Take
Yes, the market preference is for natural gas-fired power generation, not wind, solar, and batteries, which are a government play. Here was an update on gas turbine demand earlier this year by Jinjoo Lee, “How Jet Engines Are Powering Data Centers” (WSJ: February 18, 2026):
“Companies are converting aircraft engines to land-based natural-gas turbines for power generation in the AI boom,” he reports. “In the battle for AI dominance, every engine of the economy is getting recruited into the fight—including jet engines.” Details followed:
Jet-engine leasing and repair company FTAI Aviation plans to start selling a modified version of the engine used in the Boeing 737 to power data centers this year.,,, Others pursuing this conversion include ProEnergy, which sells natural-gas turbines that are adapted from the engine that powers the Boeing 747. Aircraft startup Boom Supersonic in December said it will start selling a modified version of its engine as a natural-gas power turbine. AI data-center startup Crusoe is its first customer and is expected to get its turbines in 2027.
Power-equipment giants GE Vernova, Siemens Energy and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries already sell power turbines—known as aeroderivatives—that are modeled after jet engines. Aircraft-engine companies such as GE Aerospace, Howmet Aerospace and Woodward also sell land-based aeroderivative turbines or components.
The quick fix will bridge the gap until major power turbine manufactures catch up, their capacity being diverted to industrial wind turbines. Lee continues:
Yet many of these incumbents have yearslong wait lists for power turbines, opening up an opportunity for new market participants. FTAI Aviation’s President David Moreno said it takes the company 30 to 45 days to convert a jet engine to a power-generating turbine. He said designing the turbine, which kept as much of the original jet-engine features as possible, was a roughly 18
month undertaking. The company is well-positioned to tap this hot market: It is one of the largest owners of the CFM56 engine, the bestselling one in commercial aviation.
The ‘invisible hand’ is at work to enable to enable the dash-to-gas–and to diesel too–in the catch-up period for economical, large-scale power generation.
The big Caterpillar diesel engines that are used in their gigantic mining trucks are also powering generators for data centers.
They have opened a new factory in China to try and meet demand.
Amazon has contracted for nuclear power…
“A 20-year power purchase agreement signed by tech giant Amazon will enable Constellation to add 190 MW of capacity and extend the operating life of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Maryland in the US.
Constellation said that the agreement will allow USD3 billion of investment, with the additional 190 MW being added to the existing 1,790 MW output of the Calvert Cliffs Clean Energy Center between 2030 and 2032.
It said: “In addition to making the uprate possible, Amazon’s long-term commitment will help provide Constellation with the revenue certainty to re-licence the plant for another 20 years and make progress toward the development of new clean energy power plants at the site.”
False. Over 90% of power generation between added is solar. Only 10% is natural gas.
I missed the part of Mr. Smith’s post where he broke down the percentages. How can something be false if he never said it?
It is midnight EDT as i read this statement. I am confident that the total output of all the solar equipment in the continental US is 0.0 and it will stay that way until sunrise beginning in about 7 hours. So at this moment all of the additional capacity is gas fired.
These are diesel generators for backup, not primary power.
Diesel backup is only needed because wind and solar are feeble and intermittent.
No, the primary source of power in the PJM grid is fossil fuels. And all data centers , regardless of power source, require backup deisels because they must run without any interruption.
Agree. That is also why you don’t see any data centers/AI companies [Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, etc] invest in intermittant, unreliable wind or solar: so far only natgas or nukes.
Full system cost analysis shows Intermittant sources like wind & solar make an electric grid more expensive and more fragile.
In Tasmania, a planned data centre will need 276 diesel “backup” power plants. But the truth is that Tassie Hydro cannot deliver sufficient hydro power for the site, so it’s obvious those diesel engines will be running 24/7.
Could be.
The renewable narrative is losing – or has lost – its raison d’être.. It is now irrelevant whether climate change is human caused or not. The massive amount of money spent on ‘low carbon’ technologies has utterly failed to even produce a measurable downtick in global atmospheric Co2 level rise rates.
In short ‘green’ technology, has failed to affect the one parameter it was chosen for.
The real narrative affecting voters is how to achieve low cost energy in the face of rising scarcity and price of fossil fuels, exacerbated by world ‘leaders’ who seem determined to conduct wars to raise its price.
For the moment that may be gas. But as the industry has found out, gas is not inexhaustible either and not everybody has it, and an LNG tanker is a very easy thing to destroy.
We do have one reliable non fossil generation technology whose fuel is abundant, very small indeed for its energy content and very hard do destroy. And whose green credentials also happen to be impeccable, and whose cost overall is already comparable to coal and gas and well below the overall cost of deploying wind or solar.
Voters are as stupid as the politicians they vote for. But eventually the realisation will dawn that the cat fights, the jeers and the hatred is not fixing cost of living price rises.
We are all, of whatever persuasion, dependent on a technological civilisation to keep us alive and chomping burgers.
It should not be a matter of party politics how we achieve that: It should be – and in the final analysis it will be – a matter of pure survival.
‘renewable energy’ is destroying civilisation more surely than climate change was ever alleged to be.
And gas is only a temporary palliative
It was never a good idea to switch from coal to gas for generation – coal does the job and there’s still plenty of it; gas is too valuable to burn in power plants because of all its other potential uses.
In the UK the “dash for gas” was all Margaret Thatcher’s doing because she didn’t want the mining unions to hold the country to ransom again.
“gas is too valuable to burn in power plants because of all its other potential uses”
It’s value is whatever the market says it is NOW- not terribly concerned what its potential uses are.
I presume it’s you that gave me the down vote, Joseph, so let me clarify.
I mean things like fertiliser that we suddenly seem to be short of. That’s had an effect on prices in the UK which will ultimately have an adverse effect on the food supply.
And, yes, it’s the fault of the UK government that we are where we are but that doesn’t alter my point.
Nope, wasn’t me who gave you the down vote. I seldom do that.
My apologies, Joseph.
No one wants filthy coal. Over 90% of power generation between added is solar. Only 10% is natural gas
The Chinese seem to love “filthy” coal, in view of the number of coal plants they are building.
So does India.
Then how do you explain the increased use of coal power, particularly in Asia and China?
A problem with depending on natural gas for generating electricity is that you can’t store the gas onsite like you can with coal or (obviously) nuclear. If there is insufficient gas to heat homes and provide electricity then what? A couple winters ago Xcel Energy in Minnesota was asking customers to turn down their thermostats because of a deep cold spell when the wind wasn’t blowing so they were depending more on gas for generating electricity. With a coal plant they’d not have had that issue. Or if they still had nuclear.
False. Over 90% of power generation between added is solar. Only 10% is natural gas
You keep writing this sentence which does not make any sense!
“Solar grew in 2025 to a share of total power production of 8.7%”
“Fossil fuels continued to expand in absolute terms and retained their dominant position accounting for 84% of total energy supply”
Energy Institute ‘2026 Statistical Review of World Energy’ (May 2026)
Apologies – typo : last sentence should read
“accounting for 86% of total energy supply”
Perhaps Waren B. wanted to use the word “being”, not between. This sort of error is common in AI generated text. That’s why it is called “artificial”, and why I try to avoid it when recognized.
No contradiction whatsoever
I’m struggling to make up my mind about AI……but I’m bordering on : The blase approach to regulation of, let’s face it, the smartest entity in the history of humanity…..( in peer reviewed tests AI has been proven to be deceitful)……..likely leading to the annihilation in short order .. of the human race. So they’re using jet engines huh? That is quite creative but…..having energy autonomy makes it harder to turn the damn thing off when it decides that humans are sluggish, needy, and superfluous…………..I’m old so I’ll be dust by the time things get out of hand ( I hope).
“ especially as innovations in hydrogen fuel and carbon capture mature”
My guess is the alarmists have repeated this garbage so many times that they now state it as if it’s factual.
They have the faith!
What they need is not faith but thermodynamics…. But it’s so hard….
They take a lot of things on faith.
“ especially as innovations in hydrogen fuel and carbon capture turn to manure”- fixed that
Manure is useful. It has none of the drawbacks of H. fuel and is easily obtained, unlike capturing carbon {sic} or a Sasquatch.
Why do people keep saying “reducing emissions” as if it is a good thing. This usually means reducing CO2 which is a valuable plant food. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the better for the earth and all inhabitants. Expensive attempts to reduce or sequester CO2 must rank as one of the most stupid thing humans do.
https://climate.nasa.gov
A tendentious narrative decorated with mathematics.
Outside of models, there is no evidence that anything bad is happening. Nor is there any evidence that most of the warming the planet has been enjoying for the last 200 years is being caused by CO2.
The known benefits of CO2 are many.
The known benefits of warming weather are many.
The negatives for both are theoretical and so far, imaginary.
Well, how much electricity does a converted 747 engine produce?
General Electric’s CF6 family of engines were used on Boeing’s 747. GE’s LM6000 series of ground power generation systems use modified CF6 engines to drive large generators in place of the big fans found on commercial engines. LM6000 systems range from approximately 42 to 56 MW in generating capability.
Thanks, Tim.
Putting things in perspective.
Wait a minute…I thought wind and solar power were the cheapest and most reliable forms of power generation over any fossil fueled sources. You mean that isn’t true?
You have a dominant sarcasm gene I see.
It’s to make up for my blue eye recessive gene.
Sarcasm is my favorite language.
It is true. Solar represents 90% of new power generation added in the US in recent years; only 10% was natural gas.
NO,
90% theoretical capacity is not the same as 90% actual new power generation !!
You must have been the boy at the back of maths & physics classes, playing with yourself instead of learning.
“90% of new power generation is Solar:”
That’s no doubt based on nameplate capacity- your actual results will vary- esp on windless nights….
While I agree with you 100%, I don’t think that wind has much to do with solar power (night or day). 😊
A 5-year new person puts on weight faster than an 85-year old person. In your repeated offerings the word new and recent are tells of failure to comprehend the totality of the power infrastructure.
No, it tells of the failure of many on this thread to accept that utilities may know more about the technology than they do.
And we who run the grid don’t care when solar operators call to close in or take offline their pv sites. We don’t notify the balancing authority or the reliability coordinator. Because pv solar doesn’t matter.
Even if true, your comment bears no relationship to the question asked. Much like most of your posts.
They did this a few yeas ago in Belgium. Those 50 year old jet engines emit 3 times more CO2 than a gas turbine and make a lot of noise. Not sure if these are the same but I don’t think they’re the future. Do they run on kerosine? Might be a problem if we’re running short on diesel and jet fuel.
If the jet engines emitted 3× more CO₂ than a gas turbine, for the same power output, then they’d be 1/3 as efficient. I.e., 13.3% rather than 40% for single cycle, or 20% rather than 60% for combined cycle.
No one would use them.
If Belgium used them, it may have been for some sort of stop-gap power. That is, temporary usage to cover some outage or or some excess demand.
Two interesting features here is the use of sCO2 in bottom-cycline the turbine exhaust to generate electrical energy and the use of the Brayton Cycle to increase efficiency and in some cases eliminate cooling Towerd using water evaporation.
CO2 capture from stacks may well have economic uses .
CO2 capture from the 4 molecules per 10,000 of ambient air is the most egregious of all the ` climate scams .