This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
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:
Will this renewable energy powerhouse become the first state to ban renewable energy?

There’s a nascent, concerted effort to make Oklahoma the first state to ban new renewable energy projects. And it’s picking up steam.
Across the U.S., activism against wind and solar energy has only grown in intensity, power, and scope in tandem with the recent renewables boom. This is in direct contrast to hopes many in the climate movement had that these technologies would become more popular as they entered communities historically hostile to the idea of switching away from fossil fuels. If anything, grassroots angst toward the energy transition has only surged in many pockets of the country since passage of the nation’s first climate law – Inflation Reduction Act – in 2022.
Nowhere is this more true than Oklahoma, which on paper resembles a breadbasket of possibilities for the “green” economy. Oklahoma is the nation’s third largest generator of wind energy, home to a burgeoning solar energy sector, a potential hydrogen hub, and maybe even the nation’s first refinery for cobalt, a rare metal used in electric vehicles. Yet yesterday, hundreds of people flocked to Oklahoma City, filled a giant hall in the state’s capitol building to the brim, and rallied for the state’s governor Kevin Stitt to issue an executive order to stop new wind and solar energy facilities from being built.
“Welcome Oklahoma, for braving the cold out there into this very warm and receiving Capitol. And y’know what? Our warmth today was not brought to us by green energy,” Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond told the rally audience.
It’s exceedingly likely these folks won’t get an executive order any time soon. Oklahoma Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, has embraced these technologies as job creators. “Oklahoma is an oil and gas state through and through, but we also generate about 47% of our electricity from renewable sources,” he wrote on X in August. “I just don’t think the government should pick winners and losers or force us to choose between one or the other.” Weeks ago, he signed a memorandum of understanding between the state and the nation of Denmark to collaborate more on wind energy.
But the political gusts are blowing in the direction of a ban. Exhibit A: Drummond, who it’s rumored may run to replace Stitt and who at the rally pledged to work with legislators to pass a bill ending the deal with “quasi-socialist” Denmark. The rally also featured Oklahoma’s Education Secretary Ryan Walters, whose name has also been included in gubernatorial chatter.
This uprising in Oklahoma has been happening for quite some time, without much fanfare due to a persistent and pernicious news desert problem in the state (and many others). Like other states, it is becoming more commonplace for towns and counties there to face pressure to support moratoriums against developing new projects, and GOP lawmakers are also increasingly facing primaries over offering any support to wind or solar energy, or even just remaining neutral on whether projects get built. One such casualty in the last election cycle was Kevin Wallace, the GOP chair of the Appropriations and Budget Committee in the statehouse, who was dethroned by a political newcomer – Jim Shaw, who ran heavily on anti-renewables policies, including a statewide moratorium.
“It’s a groundswell,” said Pam Kingfisher, an environmental activist in northeast Oklahoma. Kingfisher is a Democrat but she has her own concerns with the environmental impacts that wind turbines could have in her community, the town of Kansas. So she’s grateful for this uprising.
“They’re attacking their own people and being very effective and I’m standing back going, ‘hey yes, take them on.’”
Suffice it to say, these activists feel emboldened by the primary wins and Trump’s election. Charity Linch, chair of the Oklahoma chapter of the Republican National Committee, told me she doesn’t believe the “pro-renewable Republican” will exist much longer in the state.
“I don’t believe that’s going to continue in Oklahoma,” Linch told me. “If they haven’t figured it out yet, they will very soon.”
Linch is the proud founder of Freedom Brigades, a grassroots network of activists with members in several states. The Freedom Brigade chapters for two counties conflicted over wind – McIntosh and Pittsburg – were instrumental in organizing the rally. Linch said Freedom Brigades also helped support some of the successful primary challengers in this past election cycle, and that her members were partially responsible for the Oklahoma GOP censuring Sen. James Lankford last year over a bipartisan border deal in Congress – causing the bill to die.
From talking to Linch, it’s clear to me that renewable developers should pay close attention to the Oklahoma uprising. So should Washington, because as talk in Congress proceeds toward changing the Inflation Reduction Act, rest assured some of these people will contact their members of Congress when the time comes. And you should expect the same from the myriad of anti-renewables activists in other states fighting solar and wind projects in their own backyards.
Getting Red In The Face
Why is this rebellion happening in Oklahoma? Well, if you ask Oklahomans, they’ll count the reasons.
Activists involved in planning the rally told me the biggest reason for the uproar was that solar and wind projects aren’t bringing the ample jobs developers and policymakers promise, making their presence in communities more difficult to stomach. Others point to environmental concerns, from the impacts these projects can have on species to the chemicals used to make them. Like Saundra Traywick, a donkey farmer who attended the rally and author of a Change.org petition supporting a state renewables ban that has more than 3,000 signatures. The petition claims wind turbines present “hazards to the health, safety, and welfare of the people.”
“They resort to calling us names instead of listening to us,” Traywick told me. “None of us wanted to get involved in any of this. We didn’t want to be involved in politics. These are farmers that are dealing with freezing temperatures,” referencing the temperature outside the rally.
There’s a serious issue of tribal opposition, given a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that found nearly half of all lands in Oklahoma fall under some form of tribal sovereignty. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin explained last year, this means developers may also need to get mineral rights approvals from tribal government bodies. Two weeks ago, a federal judge ordered the removal of 84 wind turbines on those grounds, stating the developer Enel Green Power failed to get adequate permission from the Osage Nation.
Some involved in this push for a renewables ban are also open about another rationale: They want to help oil and gas production, a key source of employment in the state.
“Why are we as a state being forced to fund our own demise essentially, with our federal taxpayer dollars, to prop up an industry that’s literally killing the backbone industry of our state, which is oil and gas?” Shaw said on Breitbart’s Conservative Review podcast in December.
To anyone who believes, as the vast majority of scientists say, that climate change is real and to avert catastrophe we must quickly build an energy grid that produces far fewer carbon emissions, these may all look like terrible reasons.
But if you don’t believe that climate change is real, or you believe it’s an overrated problem… renewables are just a much harder sell.
“Most of us do not believe we need to reduce our CO2 to begin with,” NeAnne Clinton, an activist fighting a large NextEra solar-plus-battery project in Garfield County, Oklahoma, told me. “We know that it’s a scam and we don’t support it. And we don’t support using our taxpayer money for something that we didn’t have a voice in.”
Cheyenne Branscum, chair of Sierra Club’s Oklahoma chapter, told me it is difficult for supporters of renewable energy to counter this insurgent populist movement against the sector. Part of the dilemma is that environmental activism itself is seen by many of the state’s most red-blooded Republicans as a “radical” act, so if climate advocates were to organize counter protests it would likely backfire. When asked how her organization and others could best deal with the anti-renewables sentiment rising in her state, she talked about education programs – not confrontation.
“We’re not going to change anything at the state capital,” Branscum told me. “All a counter rally is going to do is make them have more opportunities to make us into a meme. They’re going to have some angry picture out there with a sign and be labeled some crazy radical that doesn’t care about their community. And it is unfortunately a hurdle.”
The Sooners’ Warning Shot
The Oklahoma rebellion should be cold comfort for anyone who buys into one of the implicit political principles behind the country’s first climate law – the Inflation Reduction Act.
Whether folks in D.C. want to admit it or not, the American anti-renewables revolution is rising up as Donald Trump retakes the White House and it is going to try and make its own impact on the Inflation Reduction Act. While much ado has been made about how the overwhelming majority of monetary benefits from the IRA are supporting investments in Republican-controlled states, as veteran lobbyist Frank Maisano put it to me last year, “Businesses will support many things that they have their tentacles into and Republicans will support many things that are going on in their districts that constituents like.”
“The reality is, if you’re going to try to repeal it,” Maisano said, “you’re going to have to do it through Congress and a lot of the action in the energy transition is in Republican districts. It becomes a constituent issue.”
What if many Republican constituents simply don’t like these new investments, in spite of the promises of jobs or tax benefits? What happens if Republicans in Congress are primaried simply for allowing solar and wind to keep getting federal tax breaks?
None of this surprises Nathan Jensen, a Texas University professor specializing in resource politics, who believes Oklahoma will only be the first to face a movement for a state-wide ban on new renewables. Just look at Texas where, like Oklahoma, the energy sector has become a panacea for wind and solar energy but many GOP policymakers have turned on economic development packages for new renewables. A state-wide ban hasn’t been discussed yet, but Jensen can imagine the idea gaining traction.
Jensen said he believes the organizing on platforms like Facebook only tells part of the story. Clearly, he says, a lot of people are joining that cause because the industry’s grown large enough that people are hearing from the farm or town next to theirs about solar and wind projects. And whether climate advocates want to hear it or not, these people are not loving what they’re hearing. Solar and wind projects don’t create that many jobs after they’re built. They do create a flurry of construction, but that’s a form of labor that leaves when it’s done and is often resented by neighbors, leading to disputes over dust, noise, or water. Then there’s the tax abatements for developers, which aggrieved residents see as taxpayer dollars going to large companies without their say – precisely the message gaining traction in Oklahoma.
This means places that seem safe for renewable developers are no longer safe and companies need to be really careful about how they approach community benefits. It’s not something you can just say – you really need to deliver what you promise.
“I know there’s a lot of news about organized anti-solar, which clearly happens, but also there’s this organic opposition that happens where it’s like, ‘You’re asking for how much from our school district?’” Jensen said. “Some of it is organized Facebook groups against solar but I think there is a lot of frustration.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center water issues are real – but they aren’t what you think.
Too often, I hear people say the number one reason they’re against data center development is water use. Heatmap’s data shows water consumption is historically the reason cited most often by activists when opposing projects. This complaint, they often say, is rooted in the fear that this nascent buildout of AI infrastructure will simply draw so much H2O it will leave little liquid left for the rest of us.
I spent weeks trying to understand how real the water use problem is when it comes to data centers, reading research and speaking to some of the world’s leading academics, large tech firms, and environmental advocates to make my best attempt at answering some of the most important questions being asked about data centers.
Before I jump into this thicket, a few caveats. I’m not going to address the host of water pollution concerns many have raised about data centers because that is for a future article. If you want me to dissect how Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got a jar of dirty water near a Meta data center, that was poor construction practices – not a data center’s water demand. By that same token, if you're itching for me to find out how much PFAS is in data center water, I’m not delving into that here, though I’ll just say PFAS is everywhere and isn’t a data center-specific issue.
So are there problems with AI data centers’ water use? Yes. Are data centers using too much water for society to handle? It depends on what “too much” means to you. Is the AI data center boom going to usher in a new era of drought across the United States? Probably not, but there’s a few places we should be mindful of.

Researchers told me data center water use is a painfully understudied topic rendered more obscure by a lack of public information about individual H2O consumption at the project level. Those I spoke to were split on how seriously to take the topic.
Some analyses insist the sector’s water use should be regulated and tackled head-on by the sector. I spoke with Yi Ding, an assistant professor at Purdue University, who co-authored a paper laying out a framework for evaluating the water impact of computing weighted specifically for water stress. Ding told me there is currently no set of industry-led best practices for sustainable water-conscious data center operation and her work aims to fill that gap.
When I asked Ding if data centers are actually threatening individual towns’ water supplies, she didn’t hesitate: “Yes, it’s significant.”
Others in this field have the opposite view.
“Water is often brought up as the primary concern when it’s less important,” David Mytton, a sustainable computing researcher at Oxford University, told me. “The more important thing is going to be how you bring more clean energy onto the grid, and nuclear power, so that we can generate sufficient energy to build these centers.”
Large tech companies are starting to spend less time debating the extent of the problem and more bandwidth addressing the PR crisis surrounding data center and AI water use.
Ben Townsend, Google’s head of infrastructure and sustainability, told me he believes that “from a comms and PR perspective” he has “no doubt” it would be easier to build data centers without the debate over water. “Data centers operators are not explaining why they’re using water or how much water they use. There’s a complete lack of transparency or discussion.”
Google has been getting splashy around this topic, a public relations strategy that reminds me of Meta’s recent workforce training investments. Last week, Google announced five fresh “commitments” towards its “climate-conscious approach” to water use, including a pledge to “replenish more water than we consume at our sites” by 2030.
This week, Amazon made a similar declaration and claimed its operations are 75% of the way to accomplishing this goal, which it’s calling “water positive.” Brandon Oyer, director of energy and water at Amazon Web Services, told me he thinks the industry “could’ve done better” and “come out earlier” to address its water use.
“There’s just been a lot of misinformation that has led people to [be] a little bit alarmist. And rightfully so. I would get alarmed if I thought that water was going to be impacted in my community,” Oyer said.
The basics of data center water use
Data centers need water to cool large server racks whizzing away to power AI and most other internet practices, from streaming to online banking. Normally, you don’t want computers to get too hot because then they can crash causing potentially catastrophic harm to the machine.
This water use presents a number of environmental challenges. Often, server farms rely on clean, fresh water, or filtered drinking water, a need largely for functionality reasons. They’re competing for this resource at a time when supply is dwindling amidst the crisis of global warming.
Making matters worse, much of the U.S. has faced drought conditions over the past year, including states that are typically water abundant, like Virginia and Georgia, that are at the center of the data center boom. On Monday, The Guardian reported that more than half of all planned data centers in the U.S. are in “locations that have been in drought conditions throughout the past year,” citing data center site information from federal agencies and the energy data firm Cleanview.
In the top data center destination of Texas, where peak electricity demand could more than quadruple in the near future, analysis from state university researchers released in May found data centers could wind up between 3% to 9% of water demand by 2040. Projects are being developed near cities like Corpus Christi and El Paso that were already fearful their drinking water supplies would dry up before the AI infrastructure boom came to town.
“The impact of building a data center in Arizona versus Wyoming is very different,” said Ding, the Purdue University researcher. “[Companies] will say different things because of their position. The problem is substantial and sometimes it’s not that they don’t want to use water – it means they don’t have water to use.”
The most water intensive version of data center cooling is called “evaporative cooling,” which mixes water evaporation and ventilation air flow to cool rooms in ways industry compares to human sweat. Evaporative cooling uses a lot of water and regular fresh supply because, well, the water goes away once it evaporates.
One Google data center using evaporative cooling in Council Bluffs, Iowa used more than 1 billion gallons of water in 2024, a stat that made the project a poster child for perceived excesses in water use. Somewhat ironically, we know this because Google is one of the few large tech companies to voluntarily disclose direct water consumption from individual data centers on an annual basis.
But cooling tech is becoming much more water efficient. You may have heard of “closed loop cooling” – that’s when a chilling system is supposedly self-contained. These systems as designed typically rely on loops of pipes filled with coolant flowing through them. This means they should not expel much liquid. If the modern trend in data center development skewed towards closed-loop systems, it would theoretically mean very little new water supply drawn on the average day.
“If you’re using a closed loop system, the water goes into the data center and then it doesn’t really require a refill every so often. It’s a one-time thing,” Mytton said. “If you’re using evaporative cooling, the water is continuously evaporating into the atmosphere. That’s when it’s being drawn from water sources.”
Closed-loop systems aren’t perfect because of ordinary issues like leaks. These flaws have meant this innovation has done little to assuage the loudest local concerns about water use. Critics of the sector have pointed to estimates pegging a closed-loop failure rate up to 25%. But Mytton said this criticism against closed-loop cooling systems is a little misguided. “They’re just wrong. They just don’t understand how data centers work.”
Closed loop systems and water-free cooling processes (like simple air vent-based cooling) also have trade-offs, particularly the extra energy and chemicals required to make these loops work to spec. Given data center developers are often choosing gas-fired power, which also requires water and produces greenhouse gas emissions, more power for less water is hardly a comfortable trade-off from an environmental perspective.
“‘Closed-loop cooling’ is a marketing gimmick,” proclaimed anti-data center group Food and Water Watch in an April blog post, calling the practice “greenwashing” and “just clever advertising.”
We do not know right now how much water most data centers are actually using, sans a handful of companies reporting individual facility use like Google. The data center development space – Big Tech, their subsidiaries, start ups, real estate firms – is mostly keeping their individual facility water usage private, and there isn’t really any regulation at any level of government to compel this information to be released in the United States, despite it being the number one destination for data center development. Corporations often consider these figures proprietary and municipal governments often consider this confidential business information, making it likely to be redacted or withheld from public records requests.
For example, in Wisconsin, an environmental group sued the city of Racine when officials refused to give water use projections for Microsoft’s data center campus in the nearby village of Mount Pleasant, about five miles from the shores of Lake Michigan. The projections were ultimately released under court order, showing Microsoft’s data center campus was projected to use up to 234,000 gallons of water on peak days or up to 2.8 million per year; eventually those numbers could almost triple to 702,000 gallons on peak days, or almost 8.5 million gallons a year.
These projections, according to Microsoft, are for a facility where more than 90% of the facility will rely on closed-loop cooling. The rest of the data center campus “will use outside air for cooling, switching to water only on the hottest days.” The company has called this design a “technological milestone” that’ll use “roughly the amount of water a typical restaurant uses annually.”
Microsoft is accurate here: the average eatery uses roughly 250,000-to-300,000 gallons of water a year according to restaurant sustainability advocates, a level of consumption that’s led restaurants to be roughly 15 percent of total water use in commercial facilities in the United States.
Personally I think it is easier and more useful to compare a data center to a farm, especially given how many are fighting to stop these projects to preserve prime farmland. Agriculture doesn’t measure water consumption by the gallon; farms use far too much water for those stats to work here. Instead farms use acre-feet, which is calculated using the volume of water necessary to entirely cover an acre of land with one foot of water. For posterity, one acre-foot is almost 326,000 gallons of water, which is about the maximum daily water consumption of that Microsoft data center in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin. In 2023, the average amount of water applied to a single acre of farmland for irrigation was 1.5 acre-feet, rendering this figure comparable to a large Microsoft data center. This is still a lot of water and not a 1:1 comparison, since different crops require water at different times. But even if a data center consumed that much water every day for a full year, that’s 365 days. An average large farm is a little more than 1,400 acres and many farms span far more acreage. That’s the sort of relative scale we’re working with. So, for instance, a large family farm in Stafford County, Kansas, might use something like 420 million gallons of water over roughly 1,000 irrigated acres of corn in an average year.
I’m no farming expert – there might be things about farmland irrigation I don’t necessarily understand. But it's hard for me to look at these numbers and not long for some sort of rethinking about how we’re doing water math with data centers, especially given the environmental trade-offs around using less water.
Honestly I don’t think trying to explain this math helps anymore because secrecy may have spoiled the well in Racine, pun intended. In September, a peer-reviewed study by University of Wisconsin researchers found the Mount Pleasant datacenter had become “a microcosm of a macro problem with secrecy.” The paper stated that while closed-loop systems at the Mount Pleasant facility “may significantly reduce water use during some of the year, there is still a question of transparency and why it has been so difficult to obtain clear answers about water use.” Full transparency around water use, as well as the energy required for water-lite cooling practices, would be “essential” for any future research into industry practices “to have credibility,” the study stated.
Asked for comment on the study, a Microsoft spokesperson said via email: “Our datacenter campus in Mount Pleasant leverages the latest and most innovative cooling technology available. In past datacenter designs, water has played a key role in datacenter cooling and humidification, but our new designs aim to eliminate this continuous need for municipal water for cooling. The bottom line is that this data center, and others we build in the future, will not require massive amounts of water.”
When you zoom out further, water use by sector shows that U.S. data centers are not the leading driver of water use and its scarcity to date. Thermal power (fossil energy) and agriculture are by far the largest users of water in the U.S. economy, and it would be challenging for the data center industry to ever catch up. Industry figures collected in 2015 found thermo-electric power used roughly 132.4 billion gallons of water per day. Irrigation was a close second at 118 billion gallons of water daily. By comparison, researchers have noted International Energy Agency estimates that the entire global data center sector consumed a comparable amount of water during all of 2023. These are pre-AI boom numbers, but they tell us a lot about relative scale.
However, once again, researchers, tech companies, and advocates alike all told me they believe this macro picture elides individual communities and transparency issues are rendering these comparisons unhelpful for calming concerns down. The data center conflicts are local matters felt acutely, especially in places where drinking water is either hard to come by or expensive. Your average rural desert town or midwestern farming district cares little about the world; they want to know if their own wells will run dry. As Amazon’s Oyer told me, “The hyperlocal influence you can have on a water supply is why it becomes top of mind for people.”
One way to measure data center water impacts in aggregate may be to quantify the potential infrastructure upgrades necessary to meet the industry’s demand. A new study by researchers at University of California-Riverside and CalTech found that new water infrastructure spending for data centers alone could total as much as $58 billion in only four years time. These upgrades will be necessary in order for municipal water supplies to withstand peak demand on the hottest days of the year, a need akin to grid resilience upgrades. Not to mention our nation’s sewer systems are in desperate need of upgrades.
“If a data center was able to show they weren’t stripping our water resources and convinced a community they have mitigation strategies at the local level, that’s a theoretical path,” said Kathryn Hoffman, executive director of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. Her organization has successfully stalled data center projects in the state with lawsuits arguing city and county environmental reviews are failing to account for the full extent of local resource usage, including water.
“Unfortunately, we’re a long way from that,” Hoffman added.
And more of this week’s biggest news around project fights.
1. Matagorda County, Texas – The bipartisan data center backlash is now so powerful that a top Republican Texas state official is doing an event with the Democrat vying to replace him.
2. Albany County, New York – As we await Gov. Kathy Hochul’s decision on whether to enact the nation’s first statewide moratorium on data centers, I wanted to bring up some pretty crucial facts about the situation in the Empire State.
3. Davidson County, Tennessee – Anyone who’s anyone should be talking about Nashville.
4. Lehigh County, Pennsylvania – I’m used to eagles halting wind turbines, but now people are trying to use the birds to stop data centers.
5. Laramie County, Wyoming – We had another anti-wind rally backed by national conservatives, this time in Wyoming.
6. Ellis County, Kansas – Let’s end on a sweet note: a giant solar farm getting its permits.
A conversation with Craig Lawrence of Energy Transition Ventures
This week’s conversation is one of my favorites so far – Craig Lawrence of Energy Transition Ventures. Lawrence has been around the block and back again when it comes to the cleantech investment landscape. So I took note when he got into a brief back-and-forth with an activist fighting data centers in Indiana who claimed there were “so many clean energy people who no longer care about climate change” because they “now support fossil fuel data centers if some nominal amount is met with clean energy.”
Lawrence replied, “Some of us are simply realists.”
It was a provocative answer. I reached out to Lawrence and asked if he’d explain what realism on cleantech and climate change looks like in the age of the data center boom. The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So okay, what does “realism” in the clean energy space look like in the era of the data center boom?
In general, it looks like progress. Whether that’s technological or social, which often includes increased energy consumption. This is an extreme example of demand appearing at once. And what’s been incredible for me over 25 years of being involved in this stuff is, we’re finally at a point where clean energy can meet most of this demand – the cost of renewables and the cost of energy storage are now at a point where they directly compete with or without subsidies against fossil fuels.
However we’re not at a point where it's reasonable to expect 100% of this demand can be renewables. I don’t think that’s practical. Natural gas is still a very affordable, very flexible energy source. The data centers are going to use them.
I think the game should be figuring out how to support the most clean energy. That includes nuclear and other low-carbon sources to meet this demand.
I’d like to represent the other side of this really quickly. The pro-moratoria side here would be, why? Why do we actually have to build all of this? Why not just halt these data centers so the gas isn’t built, then invest in renewable energy to green our grid?
I made that comment about being a realist. We have an administration in this country that isn’t going to do that. Who will halt that? Who is in a position to actually do that? The answer is nobody.
We have another problem to worry about – the administration halting renewable energy projects. We have to prevent that from happening. I’ve been following the school of thought that there’s a grand bargain on permitting reform applying to renewables and other sources of energy.
I honestly truly believe that head to head, renewables and energy storage beat natural gas. In the free market of power, as much as it is a free market, renewables are winning and so you are painting a target on your back trying to stop all development unless it’s 100% renewables. You’re going to face a backlash from that.
In the U.S., 93% of new electricity generation is solar, wind, and storage. Do you really need 100%? You’d like it to be but man, take the W.
We’re winning. Not only are we winning but we are destroying the competition. To create a battle that has the potential to create significant backlash against renewables is the wrong move right now.
Okay, but on the opposing side someone would say that argument is what landed us in this place to begin with. Some would say a frame of realism is why we can’t seem to shake a reliance on fossil fuels.
I don’t think that’s the reason why.
Once renewables and storage became cost competitive they’ve dominated since. Prior to that, they weren’t cost competitive and it was a policy fight to say people should be forced to buy more expensive electricity that was cleaner for the climate. That battle was difficult and had some wins and some losses. We’re past that battle now.
Renewables are winning in the global market. Would I love a scenario where we could meet all the demand with solar, wind, and batteries? Yes. And I think we can get there, but there are real practical limitations to those resources too. They’re not 24/7 resources, even though they’re getting close to that.
Let’s just say I agreed with them and that side of the argument. What can you do about it with this administration? You can certainly try to elect candidates that’ll be supportive of it. You can’t force a moratorium.
Luckily, for that side of the argument, there’s plenty of people upset about data centers that aren’t just thinking about climate change.
How do you feel about the data center backlash as an investor in cleantech, and does it impact the decisions you make around who you potentially finance?
Not yet. The data center boom for us is indicative of a broader boom for increased electricity demand, which is generally good for what we invest in.
I think this feels very deja vu. Whether it's nuclear or renewables or pipelines, someone is going to be against it and make a lot of noise. That’s part of the reason we struggle to build things in this country.
But no, if anything, the whole AI and data center buildout is a tailwind for the energy transition and climate technologies. It’s helping gas too, no doubt, because people are trying to procure any power they can, and so they’ll do it by whatever means necessary, but I continue to think we’re oversupplied globally on solar panels and batteries. That’s thanks to China, primarily. And you can build those facilities in one or two years. Gas has five-plus lead times for turbines. We’re in a position to win that battle without having to make it a political battle over halting the buildout of these things.
Do you think the upset over data centers will impact the energy projects to power them?
Yes, I do. I’m seeing subsections of X, farmers and people purporting to support them, that are really upset about solar on farmland and engaged in interesting discussions around it. The same happens with data centers and farmland. It’s interesting to try and figure out their motivations. Is it preserving the farming or an angle to attack development they don’t like?
I am seeing a mobilization of people against buying up land and buying up electricity and water and using it for… xyz. Right now the flavor is data centers. It’ll be something else down the road. We’ve even heard the same things around the EV charging buildout.