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:
When there’s no way out, should we go down?

On August 20, 1910, a “battering ram of forced air” swept across the plains of western Idaho and collided with several of the hundreds of small wildfires that had been left to simmer in the Bitterroot Mountains by the five-year-old U.S. Forest Service.
By the time the wind-fanned flames reached the trees above the mining town of Wallace, Idaho, later that day, the sky was so dark from smoke that it would go on to prevent ships 500 miles away from navigating by the stars. A forest ranger named Ed Pulaski was working on the ridge above Wallace with his crew cutting fire lines when the Big Blowup bore down on them and he realized they wouldn’t be able to outrun the flames.
And so, in what is now wildland firefighting legend, Pulaski drove his men underground.
Sheltering from a forest fire in an abandoned mineshaft was far from ideal: Pulaski held the panicked men at gunpoint to keep them from dashing back out into the fire, and he and the others eventually fell unconscious from smoke inhalation. But even now, more than a century later, there are few good options available for people who become trapped during wildfires, a problem that has caused some emergency managers, rural citizens, and entrepreneurs to consider similarly desperate — and subterranean — options.
“We have standards for tornado shelters,” Alexander Maranghides, a fire protection engineer at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the author of a major ongoing assessment of the deadly 2018 Camp fire in Paradise, California, told me. “We don’t have anything right now for fire shelters.”
That’s partially because, in the United States, evacuation has long been the preferred emergency response to wildfires that pose a threat to human life. But there are times when that method fails. Evacuation notification systems can be glitchy or the alerts sent too late. Roads get cut off and people get trapped trying to get out of their neighborhoods. Residents, for whatever reason, are unable to respond quickly to an evacuation notice, or they unwisely decide to “wait and see” if the fire gets bad, and by then it’s too late. “If you can get out, you always want to get out,” Maranghides said. “But if you cannot get out, you don’t want to burn in your car. You want to have another option and among them — I’m not going to call it a ‘Plan B,’ I’m going to call it the ‘Plan A-2.’ Because we need to plan for those zero notification events.”
One promising, albeit harrowing, option has been TRAs, or “temporary refuge shelters” — typically unplanned, open areas along evacuation routes like parking lots where trapped citizens can gather and be defended by firefighters. Hardening places like schools or hospitals so they can serve as refuges of last resort is also an option, though it’s difficult and complex and, if done improperly, can actually add fuel for the fire.
Beyond that, you start getting into more outside-the-box ideas.
Tom Cova is one such thinker. He has been studying wildfire evacuations for three decades, and when I spoke to him recently to discuss the problem of traffic jams during fire evacuations, he told me that in Australia, “they have fire bunkers — private bunkers that are kind of like Cold War bunkers in the backyard, designed to shelter [people] for a few minutes if the fire’s passing.”
Unbeknownst to me at the time, Cova has even gone on record to say he’d consider one for himself if he lived on a dead-end road in California’s chaparral country. “My family and I would not get in our car and try to navigate the smoke and flames with bumper-to-bumper taillights,” he told the Los Angeles Times back in 2008. “We would just calmly open up, just like they do in Tornado Alley — open the trap door and head downstairs. Wait 20 minutes, maybe less, and come back and extinguish the embers around the home.”
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
Bunker-curious Americans can get easily discouraged, though. For one thing, Australia’s bushfires burn through areas fast; if you’re sheltering underground from an American forest fire, you could be in your bunker for considerably longer. For another, there are very few guidelines available for such bunkers and as of yet, no U.S. regulations; even Australia, where there are standards, generally recommends against using fire bunkers except at the highest-risk sites. Then there is the fact that there is almost no existing American fire bunker market if you wanted to buy one, anyway. “You would think more people would have wildfire shelters, but they don’t,” Ron Hubbard, the CEO of Atlas Survival Shelters, told me. “Even when there was a big fire not that many years ago and all those people died in Paradise … it has never kicked in.”
Hubbard is technically in the nuclear fallout shelter business, though he’s found a niche market selling a paired-down version of his marquee survival cellar, the GarNado, to people in wildfire-prone areas. “How many do I sell a year? It’s not a lot,” he admitted. “I thought it would have been a lot more. You’d think I’d have sold hundreds of them, but I doubt — I’d be lucky if I sell 10 in a year.” Another retailer I spoke to, Natural Disaster Survival Products, offers “inground fire safety shelters” but told me that despite some active interest, “no one has bought one yet. They are expensive and not affordable for many.”
Installing a Wildfire Bunkerwww.youtube.com
Hubbard stands by his bunker’s design, which uses a two-door system similar to what is recommended by Diamond, California’s Oak Hill Fire Safe Council, one of the few U.S. fire councils that has issued fire bunker guidance. The idea is that the double doors (and the underground chamber, insulated by piled soil) will help to minimize exposure to the radiant heat from wildfires, which can reach up to 2,000 degrees. It’s typically this superheated air, not the flames themselves, that kills you during a wildfire; one breath can singe your lungs so badly that you suffocate. “Imagine moving closer and closer to a whistling kettle, through its steam, until finally your lips wrap themselves around the spout and you suck in with deep and frequent breaths,” Matthew Desmond describes vividly and gruesomely in his book On the Fireline.
This is also why proper installation and maintenance are essential when it comes to the effectiveness of a bunker: The area around the shelter needs to be kept totally clear, like a helicopter landing pad, Hubbard stressed. “You’d be stupid to put a fire shelter underneath a giant oak tree that’s gonna burn for six hours,” he pointed out.
If there is “a weakness, an Achilles heel of the shelter,” though, “it’s the amount of air that’s inside it,” Hubbard said. Since wildfire shelters have to be airtight to protect against smoke and toxic gases, it means you only have a limited time before you begin to risk suffocation inside. You can extend the clock, theoretically, by using oxygen tanks, although this is part of the reason Australia tends to recommend against fire bunkers in all but the most extreme cases: “Getting to a tiny bunker and relying on cans of air in very unpleasant conditions and being unable to see out and monitor things would be a very unpleasant few hours,” Alan March, an urban planning professor at the University of Melbourne, once told the Los Angeles Times.
Private fire bunkers, with their limited capacities, can start to feel like they epitomize the every-man-for-himself mentality that has gotten some wildfire-prone communities into this mess in the first place. Something I’ve heard over and over again from fire experts is that planning for wildfire can’t happen only at the individual level. NIST’s Maranghides explained, for example, that “if you move your shelter away from your house, but it’s next to the neighbor’s house, and your neighbor’s house catches on fire, preventing you from using your shelter, you’re going to have a problem.” A bigger-picture view is almost always necessary, whether it’s clearing roadside vegetation along exit routes or creating pre-planned and identifiable safety zones within a neighborhood.
To that end, bunkers are far from a community-level solution — it’s impractical to have a cavernous, airtight, underground chamber by the local school filled with 1,000 oxygen tanks — and they’re not a realistic option for most homeowners in rural communities, either. Beyond requiring a large eyesore of cleared space for installation on one’s property, they’re expensive; Hubbard’s fire shelter starts at $30,000, and that’s before the oxygen tanks and masks (and the training and maintenance involved in using such equipment) are added.
The biggest concern of all when it comes to wildfire bunkers, though, might be the false sense of security they give their owners. Evacuation notice compliance is already a problem for fire managers; by some estimates, as many as three-quarters of people in wildfire communities hesitate or outright ignore evacuation notices when they are issued, even when not immediately evacuating is one of the most dangerous things you can do. But by having a shelter in one’s backyard, people may start to feel overconfident about their safety and linger longer, or decide outright to “shelter in place,” putting themselves and first responders in unnecessary danger.
As far as Hubbard is aware, no one has actually ridden out a wildfire in one of his shelters yet (people tend to install them, and then he never hears from them again). But there have been reported cases of homemade fire bunkers failing, including a retired firefighter who perished in a cement bunker on his property with his wife in Colorado’s East Troublesome fire in 2020.
Even Pulaski’s celebrated escape down the mineshaft resulted in tragedy. Though the forest ranger is remembered as a hero for his quick thinking and the 40 men he saved from the Big Blowup, the stories tend to gloss over the five men who either suffocated or drowned in the shallow water in the mine while unconscious from the smoke.
Some things just don’t change over 100 years: You will always have the greatest chance of surviving a fire by not being in one at all.
Read more about wildfires:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On ‘precariously low’ oil stockpiles, China’s ammonia milestone, and a PFAS destroyer
Current conditions: The wildfires in France and Europe are slowing, but three firefighters have died and the looming heat wave could bring yet more disaster • New York and New Jersey are facing flash floods as a storm system makes its way across the Northeast United States • Days of thunderstorms are causing floods across Vientiane, Laos’ sprawling capital.
Last month, I toured Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ headquarters in small-town central Massachusetts. The place was abuzz in activity. On the factory floor side, workers were assembling the magnets needed to ultimately form the torus-shaped reactor — think a giant doughnut with an interior that curves like the core of an apple — called the tokamak. On the actual reactor side, SPARC — the prototype that CFS expects will make history next year as the first private enterprise and only tokamak to ever generate more energy that it took to start the fusion reaction — was starting to look like a functional machine from my view on a second-story walkway overlooking the sterile assembly room. The old joke that fusion is the energy source of tomorrow — and always will be — certainly didn’t ring as funny now. I’ll tell you who isn’t laughing: All the new investors that just poured another $1 billion into CFS. The company announced its latest funding round early this morning, which brings the startup’s total fundraising since its launch as a spinout from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2018 to $4 billion. CFS now accounts for 30% of all the private capital that has flowed into fusion. What distinguishes this round, my colleague Katie Brigham wrote, is that the money is coming from a bunch of institutional investors, such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, rather than venture capitalists. On a call with reporters this week, CFS’s newly-named chief financial officer, Lorence Kim, said it’s the first-time institutional investors comprised the majority of the new funding. When I asked the company’s spokeswoman for a percentage estimate breaking down the new versus old investors in this round, she declined to comment. Kim cautioned that the funding isn’t the kind of capital you raise before launching on a stock market. But his hire is notable. The former Goldman Sachs banker famously helped take the pharmaceutical giant Moderna public and held the top financial role through the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Meanwhile, a federal Superfund site at a facility in Kentucky once used to enrich uranium for atomic bombs is being transformed into a data center. On Wednesday, the Department of Energy announced a deal between investment giant Brookfield, utility behemoth NextEra Energy, and three local power providers to redevelop portions of the Paducah site into a $100 billion data center campus. “By transforming former DOE sites into engines of innovation and economic growth, we can revitalize communities with increased tax revenue and thousands of jobs, while also strengthening America’s energy security,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a press release.
The Federal Reserve held the country’s benchmark interest rate steady at Wednesday’s meeting of the U.S. central bank’s top brass. But three bank presidents voted to increase rates as renewed fighting in Iran sent energy prices upward. The dissent “underscored officials’ fraying patience with looking past another price shock on the heels of tariff-related increases last year and with robust demand stemming from the artificial-intelligence buildout,” The Wall Street Journal reported. That is, of course, bad news for renewables and other clean energy developers who rely on cheap upfront money to build, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has written.
But there are potentially bigger problems afoot for American energy consumers. U.S. crude stockpiles fell sharply last week as American refineries ramped up production to seize on surging fuel prices as fighting erupted in Iran. The stocks have now reached “precariously low” levels, analysts told the Financial Times, meaning there’s far less cushion if the war worsens the supply shock.
Last month, the energy team at the liberal policy shop Third Way assembled 100 swing voters from across the country to talk about the data centers that poll after poll shows are becoming less and less popular, to put it mildly. The conclusion of the discussions was this: “America’s opposition to data centers has less to do with their feelings about artificial intelligence and more to do with their anger and distrust of large corporations and government.” The findings, shared with me exclusively in advance, showed that most participants were open to a new data center if they believed it would come with tangible benefits for their communities. While some investors, such as “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary, have tried to present those offerings, “the trust isn’t there.” While Emily Becker, the director of Communications for Third Way’s Climate and Energy Program, told me she was “not surprised by how much opposition there was, what was heartening is people understood that benefits were possible. They just didn’t think they would receive them.”
Speaking of data centers and the public trust: NV Energy has accused one of the biggest developers of data centers in Nevada of attempting to illegally bypass state regulators to determine through private arbitration how and when the Berkshire Hathaway-owned utility should provide power to its operations. The lawsuit, filed Friday in Washoe County’s Second Judicial District Court, alleges that the developer, Tract, is trying to skirt the usual process by which the state Public Utilities Commission determines what share of the utility’s electricity should go to the large power user. Tract, according to the complaint, “wants NV Energy to reserve and provide enormous amounts of power for Tract's private development while shifting the infrastructure and energy costs to Nevada families, small businesses, and existing customers who did not cause them.” Sorting out those questions through arbitration would help to “keep these issues hidden” from state regulators and the public, NV Energy said, according to The Nevada Independent.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

When the Biden administration attempted to overhaul regulations on electrical transformers to make the key grid components more efficient, the proposal drew fierce bipartisan pushback amid a years-long nationwide shortage of the equipment. Ultimately, the Biden administration backed down and changed the proposal after receiving public comments. That would have seemed to provide some certainty for factories. But just two years after the final rule won acclaim from across the industry, the Trump administration is now considering revising the requirements for rules set to take effect in 2029. “We’re not aware of anyone asking for this,” Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, told Utility Dive. The group supported the 2024 transformer rule and other stricter efficiency requirements DOE finalized during the Biden administration.
China has signaled it’s planning to take on what Bloomberg described as a bigger role in steering global negotiations over climate change. The 15th five-year plan published Monday by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment and other key agencies outlines how Beijing “will constructively lead the multilateral governance process to address climate change” and states that “China’s influence, guiding capacity, shaping power, and moral appeal in global climate governance will be significantly enhanced” through the end of the decade. Beijing is already looking to increase how much renewable energy it consumes, as I told you last week.
As you may recall, China is going all in on figuring out how to make green hydrogen work, especially now that the People’s Republic is throwing everything at the wall to diversify its domestic supply of fuels as the Iran War chokes off its regular supply of hydrocarbons. One of the trickier questions with green hydrogen is how to ship the world’s small molecules without leaks. A popular solution is to convert the hydrogen into green ammonia. On Tuesday, SPIC Green Energy announced the successful loading of 3,750 metric tons of green ammonia produced in Jilin Province onto a vessel at the Lianyungang Port in Jiangsu Province and shipped to South Korea. “The shipment represents the world’s largest single-batch delivery of green ammonia,” analyst Jian Wu wrote in his China Hydrogen Bulletin newsletter. “It marks China’s transition from technical demonstration to large-scale international commercial delivery.”
A company promising to put an expiration date on so-called forever chemicals just raised a bunch of money to bring its technology to market. Claros Technologies is developing a proprietary system that can break down the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, contaminating millions of Americans’ drinking water systems. This week, the startup closed a $55 million Series B financing round. “Over the past year, Claros has crossed the threshold from breakthrough technology to successful commercial reality,” CEO Michelle Bellanca said in a statement.
Risk-averse but deep-pocked institutional investors join the party.
When the Fusion Industry Association surveyed the sector earlier this month, it found that the industry’s 56 active companies had collectively raised more than $14.2 billion over the past five years. But an ever-larger share of that money is ending up in the hands of one startup: Commonwealth Fusion Systems.
With its latest $1 billion funding round, announced today, the MIT spinout now accounts for nearly 30% of all capital in the industry. The new financing, led by a wave of institutional investors entering the sector for the first time, will support construction of the company’s first commercial power plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia, which CEO Bob Mumgaard says is on track to come online in the early 2030s.
In a media briefing, Mumgaard noted that this latest raise marks “the largest single funding round among fusion energy companies since our last large round of $1.8 billion in 2021.” It brings the total capital raised by CFS to an even $4 billion as the company races to complete construction of SPARC, its demo reactor. If all goes according to plan, it should begin operating sometime next year, proving out the physics and engineering approach underpinning ARC, the planned commercial plant.
The new financing deviates from the typical venture capital round, as it brings in a broad but unnamed mix of “large pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, infrastructure funds doing project finance, and industrial corporates.” These risk-averse investors would typically steer clear of expensive, first-of-a-kind facilities, demonstrating the degree to which CFS has succeeded in building confidence in an industry long critiqued for overpromising and underdelivering.
The company credits the trust it built to its extensive peer-reviewed research as well as its decision to build a tokamak — widely regarded as the most mature fusion reactor design. “I don’t think there’s any other company that’s been as transparent and open with their physics and how it actually works,” Katie Rae, CEO and managing partner at Engine Ventures, told me. Rae has participated in every one of CFS’s funding rounds, and while she says her firm has evaluated virtually every startup in the sector, the company remains its only fusion investment.
But even flush with institutional capital, Mumgaard is clear that the company will need billions more to fully finance ARC and the numerous reactors to follow. It’s unclear where exactly that money will come from, though he’s pushing for government involvement. Alongside the Fusion Industry Association, Mumgaard is advocating for a one-time, roughly $10 billion federal infusion of cash into the broader industry to expand public-private partnerships, build shared research infrastructure, and help finance first-of-a-kind plants in an effort to keep pace with China’s rapidly growing fusion program.
According to reporting from Politico, a Department of Energy official told CFS and other fusion companies that such a level of federal funding is “unrealistic in this environment.” But though insiders argue it’s what the industry needs to scale, Rae says CFS doesn’t depend on it. “I think it is the right kind of investment to make, but we didn’t count on it from an investor perspective,” she told me.
One obvious alternative is the public markets. The IPO window for climate tech has reopened, with geothermal giant Fervo and nuclear fission startup X-energy both completing successful public offerings in recent months. SPACs have also made a comeback, as numerous nuclear companies are opting for this faster, though riskier, path to the public markets. But CFS’s newly appointed CFO, Lorence Kim, said during the briefing that this latest round proves “that the private markets have a lot of capital to deploy toward our mission.” Whether an IPO is in the company’s near future remains an open question, though he cautioned against interpreting his hiring as any indication of “IPO prep in a specific way.”
For what it’s worth though, Kim has taken another high-profile, pre-revenue startup public before: Moderna. As CFO from 2014 to 2020, he helped the company scale its mRNA platform and lead its blockbuster $600 million IPO in late 2018 — the largest ever in the biotech industry at the time. Notably, this all happened before Moderna had an approved product or the Covid pandemic made its signature vaccine a household name, similar to where Commonwealth finds itself today.
“Moderna was in this moment in time where the science worked, and the strategy was focused on execution and scale and deploying capital in a way that could enable real impact on the world,” Kim explained. CFS is now at the same juncture, he said. “And so in the same way that Moderna industrialized mRNA and made it inevitable and made it ubiquitous, it was really clear to me that CFS could do the same for fusion.”
Of course, CFS is not alone in its confidence — other fusion companies are equally bullish on their own approach. Take Inertia Enterprises, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory spinout, which last week unveiled its own commercial roadmap for a laser-driven fusion reactor. The company emphasized it’s the only one to have definitively demonstrated the viability of its underlying physics in a real-world experiment, rather than through theoretical work or simulations.
Or take Helion, which has raised $1.5 billion and secured a highly ambitious power purchase agreement with Microsoft to supply electricity to the tech giant by 2028. Or Pacific Fusion, which netted a staggering $900 million Series A to be doled out in milestone-based tranches. There are dozens of others — many with hundreds of millions in funding — pursuing a range of approaches that some of the field’s brightest minds consider technically feasible.
But when I mused to Rae about how exciting it is that institutional investors now appear willing to back an industry once viewed as bordering on science fiction, she was quick to correct me.
“They’re willing to bet on Commonwealth Fusion — that’s what you mean.”
At least one hyperscaler’s big bets seem to be paying off.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Good evening. Let’s start with the news. Meta and Microsoft released their most recent quarterly earnings this evening, and Wall Street was watching to figure out if their enormous AI spending plans are paying off. We were watching because those proposals are shaping one of the most important energy stories today: the data center boom and the sharp return of electricity demand.
The returns were … mixed. Meta missed analysts’ estimates, and its profit fell 14% from the same quarter a year earlier. It increased the lower bound of how much it plans to spend on capital expenditures such as data centers this year, from $125 billion to $130 billion, but left the upper bound of $145 billion unchanged.
Microsoft, meanwhile, said its AI investments are starting to pay off. Revenue at its cloud business, which uses its data center space, increased by 43%, more than analysts expected. It spent $41 billion on capital expenses in the three months ending in June.
Meta’s stock was down 7% in after-hours trading, while Microsoft is up 8%. When Heatmap surveyed climate insiders last year, they ranked Microsoft as among the most decarbonization-friendly hyperscaler and Meta as among the worst.
Permitting odds up — thanks to Shift Key?
I do not regularly follow such things, but this afternoon I was told that the Kalshi market for “Will permitting reform become law this year?” surged to 77% today after trading for days around 50%:
I have no idea why it budged today, but perhaps what moved the market was our new episode of the Shift Key podcast (Apple, Spotify). On today’s show, I spoke with Daniel Palken, a former Capitol Hill policy staffer now at Arnold Ventures, about the current state of permitting reform negotiations in Congress. While we don’t know the exact shape of a deal yet, permitting reform is likely to be the biggest new policy for clean energy that we could get by the end of the year.
Daniel is a fantastic guide to the negotiations, and if you’re curious about the policy at all, I recommend that you listen. Here are few of my takeaways from the conversation:
1. A permitting reform deal will probably have six buckets.
They are (1) changes to the National Environmental Policy Act and the judicial review process that environmental studies face after completion; (2) reforms to the transmission process; (3) changes to the Clean Water Act; (4) a deal to make it harder for presidents to yank permits from approved projects; (5) changes to the National Historic Preservation Act, and (6) “everything else,” a grab bag of smaller fixes including to geothermal energy.
2. Wonky committee politics are shaping the deal.
The National Historic Preservation Act, for instance, is an archeological law that hasn’t been in the mix for previous reform proposals. It’s up for discussion now because Senator Mike Lee of Utah chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee — and the NHPA is the major environmental bill under his jurisdiction. Likewise, observers think that a permitting deal has a much better shot of passing during this Congress (as compared to next year) because of an expected series of changes to committee chairs.
3. It’s way, way better to hook data centers to the power grid than run them off behind-the-meter power plants — even if they run off 100% natural gas.
Any permitting reform proposal will seek to expand the transmission system. That could have big benefits for the emissions intensity of data centers. Why? I’ll let Daniel explain:
If you look at the data centers that are hooking up off grid — when they’re not using repurposed jet engines, they’re using 20% thermally efficient gas plants. Whereas if you’re hooked up to the grid, there’s really two types of gas plants that live on the grid. There’s like 60% efficient combined-cycle gas turbines, which are most of the gas power that’s generated, and then there’s peaker [plants], which have low efficiency, but are run at capacity factors of like 5% — so from an emissions perspective, they don’t matter all that much.
So even if solar and wind didn’t exist at all, and nuclear didn’t exist, and hydro didn’t exist, it would still be a much, much cleaner option [to connect data centers to the power grid]. Like we’re talking factors of three in efficiency to connect your data center to the grid if it was purely powered by gas, which is, I think, an important point to understand.
I thought that was an interesting point, and while I’d seen some of those ideas in isolation, I’d never seen them laid out in one place. (And even if grid-scale gas plants are much more efficient than behind-the-meter plants, it’s still even better to power data centers with solar, batteries, and other clean firm power plants — which is also easier when they’re hooked up to the grid.)
I’ll stop glossing the episode and just link to it one more time. Thanks for reading.