You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The country’s largest source of renewable energy has a long history.

Was Don Quixote a NIMBY?
Miguel de Cervantes’ hero admittedly wasn’t tilting at turbines in 1605, but for some of his contemporary readers in 17th-century Spain, windmills for grinding wheat into flour were viewed as a “dangerous new technology,” author Simon Winchester writes in his forthcoming book, The Breath of the Gods: The History and Future of the Wind. One interpretation of Cervantes’ novel might be that Quixote was “actually doing battle with progress.”
Nearly four and a half centuries later, harnessing the energy of the wind remains controversial, even if the breeze is one of humankind’s longest-utilized resources. While wind is the largest source of renewable electricity generation in the United States today, high construction costs and local opposition have more recently stymied the industry’s continued expansion. The new presidential administration — suspicious of wind’s reliability and place in the American energy mix — has also been doing its very best to stunt any future growth in the sector.
Whether you’re catching up on Trump’s latest regulatory moves, you have your own concerns about the safety of the technology, or this is your first time even thinking about this energy resource, here is the blow-by-blow — sorry! — on wind power in the U.S.
At their most basic conceptual level, wind turbines work by converting kinetic energy — the energy of an object in motion; in this case, air particles — into electrical energy that can be used to power homes, buildings, factories, and data centers.
Like hydroelectric dams, turbines do this by first converting kinetic energy into mechanical energy. The wind turns the turbine blades, which spin a rotor that is connected to a generator. Inside the generator are magnets that rotate around coils of copper wire, creating a magnetic field that pushes and pulls the electrons within the copper. Voilà — and with gratitude to Michael Faraday — now you have an electrical current that can be distributed to the grid.
Turbines typically require an average wind speed of about 9 miles per hour to generate electricity, which is why they are constructed in deserts, mountain passes, on top of hills, or in shallow coastal waters offshore, where there is less in the way to obstruct the flow of wind. Higher elevations are also windier, so utility-scale wind turbines are frequently around 330 feet tall (though the largest turbines tower 600 feet or higher).
It depends on the size of the turbine and also the wind speed. The average capacity of a new land-based wind turbine in the U.S. was 3.4 megawatts in 2023 — but that’s the “nameplate capacity,” or what the turbine would generate if it ran at optimal capacity around the clock.

In the U.S., the average capacity factor (i.e. the actual energy output) for a turbine is more like 42%, or close to two-fifths of its theoretical maximum output. The general rule of thumb is that one commercial turbine in the U.S. can power nearly 1,000 homes per month. In 2023, the latest year of data available, land-based and offshore wind turbines in the U.S. generated 425,235 gigawatt-hours of electricity, or enough to power 39 million American homes per year.
A common criticism of wind power is that it “stops working” if the wind isn’t blowing. While it’s true that wind is an intermittent resource, grid operators are used to coping with this. A renewables-heavy grid should combine different energy sources and utilize offline backup generators to prevent service interruptions during doldrums. Battery storage can also help handle fluctuations in demand and increase reliability.
At the same time, wind power is indeed dependent on, well, the wind. In 2023, for example, U.S. wind power generation dropped below 2022 levels due to lower-than-average wind speeds in parts of the Midwest. When you see a turbine that isn’t spinning, though, it isn’t necessarily because there isn’t enough wind. Turbines also have a “cut out” point at which they stop turning if it gets too windy, which protects the structural integrity of the blades and prevents Twisters-like mishaps, as well as keeps the rotor from over-spinning, which could strain or break the turbine’s internal rotating components used to generate electricity.
Though Americans have used wind power in various forms since the late 1800s, the oil crisis of the 1970s brought new interest, development, and investment in wind energy. “The American industry really got going after the suggestion from the Finns, the Swedes, the Danes,” who’d already been making advances in the technology, albeit on single-turbine scales, Winchester, the author of the forthcoming history of wind power, The Breath of the Gods, told me.
In the early 1970s, the Department of Energy issued a grant to William Heronemus, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, to explore the potential of wind energy. Heronemus became “really enthusiastic and built wind generators on the campus,” helping to modernize turbines into the more familiar construction we see widely today, Winchester said.
Some of Heronemus’ former students helped build the world’s first multi-turbine wind farm in New Hampshire in 1981. Though the blades of that farm interfered with nearby television reception — they had to be paused during prime time — the technology “seemed to everyone to make sense,” Winchester said. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, which introduced production tax credits for renewables, spurred further development through the end of the millennium.
Heronemus, a former Naval architect, had dreamed in the 1970s of building a flotilla of floating turbines mounted on “wind ships” that were powered by converting seawater into hydrogen fuel. Early experiments in offshore wind by the Energy Research and Development Administration, the progenitor of the Department of Energy, weren’t promising due to the technological limitations of the era — even commercial onshore wind was still in its infancy, and Heronemus’ plans looked like science-fiction.
In 1991, though, the Danes — ever the leaders in wind energy — successfully constructed the Vindeby Offshore Wind Farm, complete with 11 turbines and a total installed capacity of 5 megawatts. The Blyth offshore wind farm in northern Wales soon followed, with the United States finally constructing its first grid-connected offshore wind turbines off of Maine in 2013. The Block Island wind farm, with a capacity of 30 megawatts, is frequently cited as the first true offshore wind farm in the U.S., and began operating off the coast of Rhode Island in 2016.
Though offshore wind taps into higher and more consistent wind speeds off the ocean — and, as a result, is generally considered more efficient than onshore wind — building turbines at sea comes with its own set of challenges. Due to increased installation costs and the greater wear-and-tear of enduring saltwater and storms at sea, offshore wind is generally calculated to be about twice as expensive as onshore wind. “It’s unclear if offshore wind will ever be as cheap as onshore — even the most optimistic projections documented by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have offshore wind more expensive than the current price of onshore in 2035,” according to Brian Potter in his newsletter, Construction Physics, though he notes that “past projections have underestimated the future cost reductions of wind turbines.”

In the decade from 2014 to 2023, total wind capacity in the U.S. doubled. Onshore and offshore wind power is now responsible for over 10% of utility-scale electricity generation in the U.S., and has been the highest-producing renewable energy source in the nation since 2019. (Hydropower, the next highest-producing renewable energy source, is responsible for about 5.7% of the energy mix, by comparison.) In six states — Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, and North Dakota — onshore wind makes up more than a third of the current electricity mix, Climate Central reports.
Offshore wind has been slower to grow in the U.S. Even during the Biden administration, when the government targeted developing 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, the industry faced financing challenges, transmission and integration obstacles, and limits in access to a skilled workforce, per a 2024 paper in Energy Research & Social Science. That same year, the Department of Energy reported that the nation had a total of 80,523 megawatts for offshore wind in operation and in the pipeline, which, under ideal conditions, could power 26 million homes. Many of those offshore projects and plans now face an uncertain future under the Trump administration.
Though we’re far removed from the 1880s, when suspicious Scots dismissed wind energy pioneer James Blyth’s home turbine as “the devil’s work,” there are still plenty of persistent concerns about the safety of wind power to people and animals.
Some worry about onshore wind turbines’ effects on people, including the perceived dangers of electromagnetic fields, shadow flicker from the turning blades, and sleep disturbance or stress. Per a 2014 systematic review of 60 peer-reviewed studies on wind turbines and human health by the National Institutes of Health, while there was “evidence to suggest that wind turbines can be a source of annoyance to some people, there was no evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between living in proximity to wind turbines and more serious physiological health effects.” The topic has since been extensively studied, with no reputable research concluding that turbines have poor health impacts on those who live near them.
Last year, the blade of a turbine at Vineyard Wind 1 broke and fell into the water, causing the temporary closure of beaches in Nantucket to protect people from the fiberglass debris. While no one was ultimately injured, GE Vernova, which owns Vineyard Wind, agreed earlier this year to settle with the town for $10.5 million to compensate for the tourism and business losses that resulted from the failure. Thankfully, as my colleague Jael Holzman has written, “major errors like blade failures are incredibly rare.”
There are also concerns about the dangers of wind turbines to some wildlife. Turbines do kill birds, including endangered golden eagles, which has led to opposition from environmental and local activist groups. But context is also important: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has found that wind farms “represent just 0.03% of all human-related bird deaths in the U.S.” (Illegal shootings, for example, are the greatest cause of golden eagle deaths.) The continued use of fossil fuels and the ecological impacts of climate change also pose a far graver threat to birds than wind farms do. Still, there is room for discussion and improvement: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife issued a call earlier this year for proposals to help protect golden eagles from turbine collisions in its major wind resource areas.
Perhaps the strongest objection to offshore wind has come from concern for whales. Though there has been an ongoing “unusual mortality event” for whales off the East Coast dating back to 2016 — about the same time the burgeoning offshore wind industry took off in the United States — the two have been falsely correlated (especially by groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry). A recent government impact report ordered by Republicans even found that “NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate any death or serious injury to whales from offshore wind-related actions and has not recorded marine mammal deaths from offshore wind activities.” Still, that hasn’t stopped Republican leaders — including the president — from claiming offshore wind is making whales “a little batty.”
Polling by Heatmap has found that potential harm to wildlife is a top concern of both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the deployment of renewable energy. Although there has been “no evidence to date that the offshore wind build-out off the Atlantic coast has harmed a single whale … studies have shown that activities related to offshore wind could harm a whale, which appears to be enough to override the benefits for some people,” my colleague Jael has explained. A number of environmental groups are attempting to prevent offshore and land-based wind development on conservationist grounds, to varying degrees of success. Despite these reservations, though, our polling has found that Americans on the coast largely support offshore wind development.
Aesthetic concerns are another reason wind faces opposition. The proposed Lava Ridge wind farm in Idaho, which was Heatmap’s most imperiled renewable energy project last year, faced intense opposition, ostensibly due to the visibility of the turbines from the Minidoka National Historic Site, the site of a Japanese internment camp. Coastal homeowners have raised the same complaint about offshore wind that would be visible from the beach, like the Skipjack offshore wind project, which would be situated off the coast of Maryland.
Not good. As one of President Trump’s first acts in office, he issued an executive order that the government “shall not issue new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects” until the completion of a “comprehensive assessment” of the industry’s impacts on the economy and the environment. Eight months later, federal agencies were still not processing applications for onshore wind projects.
Offshore wind is in even more trouble because such projects are sited entirely in federal waters. As of late July, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management had rescinded all designated wind energy areas — a decision that applies to some 3.5 million acres of federal waters, including the Central Atlantic, California, and Oregon. The Department of the Interior has also made moves to end what it calls the “special treatment for unreliable energy sources, such as wind,” including by “evaluating whether to stop onshore wind development on some federal lands and halting future offshore wind lease sales.” The Interior Department will also look into how “constructing and operating wind turbines might affect migratory bird populations.”
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, meanwhile, put strict restrictions on tax credits available to wind developers. Per Cleanview, the bill jeopardizes some 114 gigawatts of wind energy projects, while the Center for American Progress writes that “more than 17,000 jobs are connected to offshore wind power projects that are already canceled, on hold, or at risk from the Trump administration’s attacks on wind power.”
The year 2024 marked a record for new wind power capacity, with 117 gigawatts of wind energy installed globally. China in particular has taken a keen interest in constructing new wind farms, installing 26 gigawatts worth, or about 5,300 turbines, between January and May of last year alone.
Still, there are significant obstacles to the buildout of wind energy even outside of the United States, including competition from solar, which is now the cheapest and most widely deployed renewable energy resource in the world. High initial construction costs, deepened by inflation and supply-chain issues, have also stymied wind development.
There are an estimated 424 terawatts worth of wind energy available on the planet, and current wind turbines tap into just half a percent of that. According to Columbia Business School’s accounting, if maximized, wind has the potential to “abate 10% to 20% of CO2 emissions by 2050, through the clean electrification of power, heat, and road transport.”
Wind is also a heavy player in the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, which aims for
7,100 terawatt hours of wind electricity generation worldwide by the end of the decade, per the International Energy Agency. But current annual growth would need to increase annual capacity additions from about 115 gigawatts in 2023 to 340 gigawatts in 2030. “Far greater policy and private-sector efforts are needed to achieve this level of capacity growth,” IEA notes, “with the most important areas for improvement being facilitating permitting for onshore wind and cost reductions for offshore wind.”
Wind turbines continue to become more efficient and more economical. Many of the advances have come in the form of bigger turbines, with the average height of a hub for a land-based turbine increasing 83% since the late 1990s. The world’s most powerful offshore turbine, Vestas’ V236-15.0 megawatt prototype, is, not coincidentally, also the world’s tallest, at 919 feet.
Advanced manufacturing techniques, such as the use of carbon fiber composites in rotor blades and 3D printed materials, could also lead to increases in efficiency. In a 2024 report, NREL anticipated that such innovations could potentially “unlock 80% more economically viable wind energy capacity within the contiguous United States.”
Floating offshore wind farms are another area of active innovation. Unlike the fixed-foundation turbines mainly used offshore today, floating turbines could be installed in deep waters and allow for development on trickier coastlines like off of Oregon and Washington state. Though there are no floating offshore wind farms in the United States yet, there are an estimated 266 gigawatts of floating turbine capacity in the pipeline globally.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Two new reports out this week create a seemingly contradictory portrait of the country’s energy transition progress.
Two clean energy reports out this week offer seemingly contradictory snapshots of domestic solar and battery manufacturing. One, released Wednesday by the Rhodium Group’s Clean Investment Monitor, shows a distinct decline in investment going into U.S. factories to make more of these technologies. The other, released today by the trade group American Clean Power Association, shows staggering recent growth in production capacity.
So which is it? Is U.S. clean energy manufacturing booming or busting?
Maybe both.
The U.S. is suddenly producing more solar and batteries than ever before — enough to meet current domestic demand — so it makes sense that investment in new factories is starting to slow. At the same time, there’s a lot of room for growth in producing the upstream components that go into these technologies, but the U.S. is no longer as attractive a place to set up shop as it was over the past four years.
The U.S. saw 30 new utility-scale solar factories and 30 new battery factories come online last year alone, according to ACP. The country now has the capacity to meet average domestic demand for storage systems through 2030, and can produce enough solar panels to satisfy demand two times over.
In both industries, nearly all of that capacity has been added since 2022, when the Inflation Reduction Act created new subsidies for domestic manufacturing. The advanced manufacturing production tax credit incentivized not just solar and battery factories, but also all the production of components that go into these technologies, including solar and battery cells, polysilicon, wafers, and anodes. On top of these direct subsidies, the IRA generated demand for U.S.-made products by granting bonus tax credits for utility-scale solar and battery projects built with domestically produced parts.
“The policy definitely laid the right foundation for a lot of this investment to take place,” John Hensley, ACP’s senior vice president of markets and policy analysis, told me.
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act has changed the environment, however. The utility-scale wind and solar tax credits were supposed to apply through at least 2033, but now projects have to start construction by July 4, 2026 — just over a month from now — in order to claim them. Any of those projects that got started this year will also have to adhere to complex new sourcing rules prohibiting Chinese-made materials.
Now, dollars flowing into new U.S. solar factories appears to be on the decline. Investment fell 22% between the fourth quarter of last year and the first of 2026. Battery manufacturing investment dropped by 16%.
The reason investment is declining is not entirely because of OBBBA — it’s partly a function of the fact that a lot of the projects announced immediately after the IRA passed are entering operations, Hannah Hess, director of climate and energy at the Rhodium Group, told me.
Rhodium’s Clean Investment Monitor tracks two metrics, announcements and investment. Announcements are when a company says it’s building a new factory or expanding an existing one, usually with some kind of projected cost. Investments are an estimate of the actual dollars spent during a given quarter on facility construction, calculated based on the total project budget and the expected amount of time it will take to complete after breaking ground.
According to Rhodium’s data, the peak period for new solar manufacturing project announcements was the second half of 2022 through the first quarter of 2025. During that time, announcements averaged more than $2 billion per quarter. New solar factories announced this past quarter, by contrast, fell to about $350 million.
Since it can take a while to get steel in the ground, the peak period for investment was slightly later, with $13.5 billion invested between the second quarter of 2023 and the third quarter of 2025.
“What we were seeing in that post-IRA period was huge, almost unconstrained growth in that sector, and that’s not happening anymore,” Hess said.
Most of this growth occurred all the way downstream, at the final product assembly level — i.e. factories making solar and battery modules that still had to import many of the components that went into them. This was the “lowest hanging fruit” to bring to the U.S., Hensley, of ACP, told me, as the final assembly is the least technologically challenging part of the supply chain.
“These supply chains have momentum as they get going,” he said, “so as you establish those far downstream component manufacturing, you start to recruit all of the upstream manufacturing.” In other words, a solar cell manufacturer is far more likely to build in the U.S. if there’s a robust local market of module factories to buy the cells.
There’s evidence that’s still happening in spite of changes to the tax credit structure. The ACP report says that three solar cell factories came online between 2024 and today — one per year. If all of the additional factories that have been announced are built by 2030, the U.S. will have nearly enough capacity to meet all of its own demand for solar with domestic cells. Battery cell capacity is growing even faster, with three factories as of the end of 2025 and seven more expected to be complete by the end of this year, which will produce more than enough units to meet average annual demand.
It’s the next step up on the supply chain that spells trouble. For solar, that’s ingots and wafers, followed by polysilicon. Today, the only producer of ingots and wafers in the U.S. is a company called Corning. It produces enough to meet about 25% of current domestic solar cell production, but cell production will more than quadruple by the end of this year compared to last year, according to ACP. Similarly, we produce enough polysilicon to meet Corning’s current needs, but not enough to meet anticipated cell demand. The announced projects in the pipeline will not add much on either front.
For batteries, it’s the anodes and cathodes. There’s currently one factory in California producing cathodes and at least one more under construction, but as there is nothing else in the pipeline, the ACP report expects cell manufacturers to rely on imported cathodes for the foreseeable future. Anodes are the one bright spot — there’s one factory producing what’s known as active anode material factory in the U.S., and four more anticipated by the end of this year. Together, they have the potential to meet demand by 2028, according to ACP.
The question now is whether that snowball effect kicked off by the IRA will continue. “A lot has changed about the outlook for future demand after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed,” Hess said. “We have seen some more project cancellations and pauses in construction recently.”
Most recently, a company called Maxeon Solar Technologies canceled a $1 billion cell and module factory in New Mexico. The company had been “fighting for its life” since 2024, according to Canary Media. It’s also majority owned by a Chinese state-owned company. The
OBBBA was likely the nail in the coffin, as it penalizes solar developers who source panels from companies with Chinese ownership.
OBBBA also shortened the timeline for the wind and solar tax credits, while the Trump administration’s hostility to wind and solar permitting has made it more difficult for projects to get built before the credits expire. Hensley said the Trump administration’s hostility toward clean energy has added a lot of risk into the system, complicating final investment decisions for manufacturers.
On the flip side, tariffs have the potential to help some domestic producers. Duties on imports from countries such as Cambodia, India, and Vietnam, all major manufacturers of solar panels, “have made their exports to the U.S. almost prohibitive,” Lara Hayim, the head of solar research at BloombergNEF, told me in an email. “This sort of policy framework could continue to provide some protection for domestic manufacturers,” she said, but there are still plenty of countries with low enough tariffs that they will continue to serve the U.S. and compete with domestic manufacturers.
Hensley said that the Trump administration’s tariffs were a double edged sword. They can help domestic manufacturers, but not if they make all of the inputs into the product more expensive.
“That’s a problem with these blanket type of tariffs that aren’t really fine-tuned to target the behavior that you’d like to see,” he told me. “I think we’re seeing a lot of that push and pull and tension in the system at the moment.”
Between Trump’s tariffs and the OBBBA, there’s no doubt that the manufacturing boom sparked by the IRA is slowing. But Hensley is optimistic that the progress will continue. “We haven’t attracted all of the supply chain yet. It’s still a work in progress, but so far the signs are quite good.”
This week’s conversation is with Duncan Campbell of DER Task Force and it’s about a big question: What makes a socially responsible data center? Campbell’s expansive background and recent focus on this issue made me take note when he recently asked that question on X. Instead of popping up in his replies, I asked him to join me here in The Fight. So shall we get started?
Oh, as always, the following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Alright let’s start with the big question: What is a socially responsible data center?
So first, there’s water, which I think is pretty solvable.
Part of me thinks water is not even the right thing to be focusing on necessarily, and it’s surprising that it became at least for a while the center of the controversy around data centers.
I think there’s energy, which is mostly a don’t-raise-people’s-bills kind of thing. Or in extreme cases, actually reducing people’s access to energy.”
I think air pollution is another key. This is one of the biggest own-goals our [climate] space is making, because people are installing behind-the-meter power and we can talk about why they’re doing that, the shifting reasons, but the real shame in it is you really shouldn’t have to run those 24/7. If you’re building your own power plant, it should enable you to get a grid connection, because you’re bringing your own capacity and they can provide you firm service, and you should only have to run that gas plant 1% of the year, so air pollution is a non-issue. If only the grid and its institutions could get their act together, this is a no-brainer. But instead people run them 24/7.
There’s noise, which has been very misunderstood and bungled on a handful of well-known projects. That’s just a do-good engineering and site layout type of problem.
And then there’s other. Beyond the very concrete impacts of a data center, what else can it do for the community it's siting itself in? That’s going to be specific for every community.
There’s going to be a perspective that data centers are takers. They get tax incentives. They’re this big new thing. If data centers were to bring something compelling when [they’re] siting in communities, and it is specific to whatever they’re dealing with, maybe they’d be considered socially responsible.
I don’t think I have the master answer here. Everyone’s trying to figure it out.”
What do you hear from other folks in decarb and climate spaces when you ask this question? Do you hear people come up with solutions, or do they knock down the entire premise of the question — that there isn’t such a thing as a socially responsible data center?
You get both. You definitely get both. It depends on who you're talking to.
I can understand both sides of the equation here. There’s definitely solutions, first of all. I do think there’s a group of people whether it is in the energy world or the data center world or tech who would have this incredulous disbelief that anyone could not want what they’re doing. And that then, after being poked and prodded enough, transforms into a very elitist, almost pejorative explanation of everybody’s just NIMBYs.
I think that’s really unproductive. It kind of just throws gas on the fire.
But there’s a lot of people working on solutions, too. The non-firm grid service thing is just a huge opportunity. To be able to connect these sites to the grid in such a manner they either get curtailed some small amount of hours per year or they show up with accredited capacity, absolving them from curtailing. I mean, we can do that. It’s very doable.
The second question becomes, what are the forms of accredited capacity that can be deployed quickly? I think that’s where there’s a lot of cool stuff around VPPs and such. Sure, build a gas power plant, run it once or twice a year. If anything that’s good for a community — back-up power at grid scale.
There’s also other solutions. A really cool effort right now, former Tesla people building a purely solar and battery DC microgrid in New Mexico.
And there’s also a lot of inertia. The folks making decisions about data centers have been doing stuff a certain way for 20 years and it’s hard to change. The inertia within the culture combined with the enormous pressure to deploy just makes it less dynamic than one would hope.
On my end, I’ve been grappling with the issue of tax revenue. We’re seeing a declining amount of money for social services, things that can really help people for both personal and academic reasons. There's quite a bit a lot of people could say on that topic. At the same time, this is another form of industrial development. People are upset at the amount of resources going to this specific thing.
So when it comes to the data center boom in general, where do you stand on social cost-versus-benefit analysis?
That’s a good question. I’m not an expert. I’m mostly just someone who designs energy projects. But I can say where I’m at personally.
Yeah, but isn’t everyone in the energy space talking about data centers? Shouldn’t we all be thinking about this?
Of course. I’m not in a place to proclaim what is right but I’ll tell you where I’m at right now.
With any large-scale industrial build out it is tough relative to other technological changes that were simpler at the infrastructure layer. Like, the smartphone. Massive technological change but pretty straightforward in a lot of ways. But industrial buildout stresses real physical resources, so people have much more of an opinion of whether it’s worth it or not.
I’m pretty optimistic about AI generally. It’s very hand-wave-y. It’s hard to cite data or anything, because we’re talking about something that hasn’t happened yet, but I’m very optimistic about increasing the amount of intelligence we have access to per person on Earth.
A similar thing I think about is when everyone stopped getting lead poisoning all the time, we all jumped five IQ points and killed each other less. Intelligence is good. A lot of our story as a species is about increasing intelligence and learnings-per-person so we can do more. The idea that we would be able to synthesize it, operate it as a machine outside of our own bodies. It feels pretty inevitable.
There’s questions about what that [AI] will do to the economy and jobs, which is what people are really concerned about and is the case with any major technological change.
Are data centers being deployed at a rate and in a way that is responsible? Like, does it need to be this fast? That’s a question people ask and that’s in a way the question being posed by the moratoriums. They’re not saying let’s ban this forever. They’re saying, let’s take a breather. And I do understand that.
There’s a lot of good solutions that could just be pursued and it’s hard for me to separate my feelings about the current path data centers are taking from what I think is objectively right. We could just be doing way better.
On the energy front, what do you make of the way our energy mix — carbon versus renewables, our resilience — is headed? And where do you think we’re heading in five years?
For the energy and climate world, this is the real question. Data centers are a complicated thing but at the end of the day, for us, they’re a source of electricity demand.
From an electricity perspective, there’s been no growth for 20 years. So the theory of addressing climate change was, as the old stuff breaks we’ll replace it with new clean stuff. That was what we were doing, while saying, a lot of the old stuff we’ll keep around. We’ll layer on the new clean stuff.
It was always the case though that we could enter a new phase of electricity growth. Actually, five years ago, when the phrase “electrify everything” was coined, it explicitly became our goal! We were going to massively and rapidly grow the electricity system in order to switch industry, heating, and transport off of fossil fuels. That’s the right prescription, the right way to do it.
My understanding of it is that while this feels really big, because we haven’t grown in so long, compared to the challenge we were all talking about doing is not big at all. It increases the challenge by 15% or 20%. That’s meaningful. But it just seems like we should be able to do this.
From a climate perspective, as someone who’s been trying to do everything I can on it for a while now, I can’t help but feel a little dismayed that today the growth we’re experiencing is some tiny, tiny percentage of what we actually set out to do. And it’s causing chaos. We’re institutionally falling apart from a single percent of what our goals should be.
This is the time for the electrification case. We can all demonstrate this is possible over the next few years. I think confidence in the electricity system as our energy path can remain high. Or this utterly fails, where it’s really hard to imagine governments and businesses making any sincere attempt at a high electrification pathway.
Plus the week’s biggest development fights.
1. LaPorte County, Indiana — If you’re wondering where data centers are still being embraced in the U.S., look no further than the northwest Indiana city of LaPorte.
2. Cumberland County, New Jersey — A broader splashback against AI infrastructure is building in South Jersey.
3. Washington County, Oregon — Hillsboro, a data center hub in Oregon, is turning to a moratorium.
4. Champaign County, Ohio — We’re still watching the slow downfall of solar in Ohio and there’s no sign of it getting any better.
5. Essex County, New York — Man oh man, what’s going on with battery storage in rural pockets of the Empire State?