Essay by Eric Worrall
They knew a decade ago – “… Battery technology is not yet at the stage where it can fully absorb that firming need and requirement. …”
Google says it needs gas to power big AI data centres
Jenny Wiggins Senior reporter
Oct 13, 2026 – 6.21pmGas is needed to help power data centres that process artificial intelligence because renewable energy and battery storage are not reliable enough, says US technology giant Google, which is searching for development sites in Australia.
“Gas has a role to play,” said Alexander Smith, Google’s principal for global infrastructure and energy. “Battery technology is not yet at the stage where it can fully absorb that firming need and requirement.”
The federal government is urging data centre projects to invest in new renewable energy as it draws up new rules expected to be passed into law next year to ease fears that developers’ need for energy will increase carbon emissions.
But although developers are keen to trumpet their use of renewables, the biggest data centres – such as Anthropic’s proposed $30 billion project in Queensland’s Western Downs Digital Park – are expected to draw on gas to provide consistent power.
…
Read more: https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/google-says-it-needs-gas-to-power-big-ai-data-centres-20261013-p61569
Google management had solid evidence renewables are not fit for purpose more than a decade ago, but chose to ignore their own researchers. They pushed green fantasies instead of genuine energy solutions.
From 2014;
All these tech giants pride themselves on their rational outlook and evidence based thinking, yet despite mountains of adverse evidence, they used their vast influence to sabotage Western economies with their green fantasies.
Only now that AI has forced them to grapple with the need for industrial levels of reliable energy, you know, the kind of energy manufacturing and industry needs, have silicon valley green stalwarts like Google finally admitted that battery firmed renewables alone are not fit for purpose.
If you need to back up renewables with fossil fuel, your energy system is an expensive failure. The cost of building and maintaining duplicated energy infrastructure, a renewable system which only works some of the time, and a fossil fuel system capable of providing 100% backup for when the renewables fail, which spends much of its time on standby, this cost far outweighs the cost of just building and maintaining the fossil fuel power system.
The reason duplicated power systems are so expensive is standby cost. Standby cost is the insurmountable burden which drives up energy bills in green energy dominated locales.
People who build and operate power stations expect the same profit regardless of how frequently their system is used. They have construction mortgages which have to be serviced, employees who expect to be paid full time, not just when they are needed, and equipment which has to be maintained and kept running on rolling standby, ready to jump in at a moment’s notice when the renewables fail. They don’t have to build and operate their power stations in places where they won’t be used full time – there is a long queue of paying customers who are desperate for their attention. This standby cost is what makes it impossible for a renewable energy system with fossil fuel backup to be cheaper than a fossil fuel power system.
It is not too late – even now Google and other major electronic frontier organisations could make an effort to undo all the damage they have done over the last few decades by pushing their green net zero fantasies.
But despite admitting they need reliable energy for their AI systems, that renewables + battery backup are not a viable solution for powering data centers, Google’s search engine and AI still delivers an over optimistic impression that renewables are the cheapest solution (see above), and search rank penalises or shadow bans climate and energy realist material from sites like WUWT.
We keep hearing radical greens claim that Exxon knew about the alleged climate crisis, but in my opinion what we have here is a case of Google knew. Google has known since at least 2014 that renewables are not a viable replacement for fossil fuel.
My question – which state or organisation will be the first to sue big tech for continuing to push green fantasies, when their own research people told them back in 2014 that renewables don’t work? How much taxpayer money has been squandered because ordinary people and politicians trusted Google search to provide unbiased search results?
